indiana

[Pinworm]

@Racist Rob

Is your son really gay? Why do you believe your son shouldn't be allowed service because of his sexual orientation? Why do you respect these bigoted cunts? Why is your penis so very, very tiny?

 

[UncleBuck]

It's funny because it's true. It's almost as if he believes he is intelligent. I never liked philosophy majors, and now I see why. Redneck racist philosophy majors are a bane on society.

that is his whole game, use euphemism to describe heinous acts as noble ones, and peaceful acts as acts of aggression.

what he describes as "remaining on their own property" and "leaving others alone" and "being peaceful" and "being indifferent" is much better described as "being hostile and aggressive as a racist to deny goods and services to blacks and gays".

what he describes as "actionable harm" and "rapist tactics" and "slavery" and "rape" and "initiating force" and "being an aggressor" is much better described as "peaceful blacks and gays offering money to vendors in exchange for goods and services".

he refuses to answer three key questions:

1) was harm caused to blacks when store owners refused them service? (YES)
2) can anyone force a store owner to serve members of the public rather than just private members? (NO)
3) what is the most peaceful, non-aggressive, non-hostile way to kick someone out of a store based on their skin color? (THERE IS NONE)

because any one of those three questions topples his entire bigoted, racist, white supremacist worldview.

MLK fought fiercely against white supremacy. he did not want a colorblind society. he wanted to destroy white supremacy, AKA the white hierarchy power structure that robrot yearns for a return to.

i honestly wish america had hate speech laws so that we could prosecute white suprwmacist like robrot who threaten the peace by trying to impose their bigotry upon peaceful members of the public who simply want to buy a soda without being singled out and discriminated against due to the skin color they were born with, or the sexuality they were born with.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Also its not hostile to leave people alone, but it is hostile to force them to do things.

You are forcing people not to do things - be prejudice against people based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin

Forcing people not to be prejudice in a public space is not taking away any rights, it's protecting the right against discrimination

Also, nobody is "forcing integration" by criminalizing discrimination

 

[Rob Roy]

You are forcing people not to do things - be prejudice against people based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin

Forcing people not to be prejudice in a public space is not taking away any rights, it's protecting the right against discrimination

Also, nobody is "forcing integration" by criminalizing discrimination

Being "prejudiced" is a thought, no matter how hard we think poorly of that person it doesn't create an actual harm to anybody when we think bad thoughts about him does it ? However when a person goes beyond thinking and uses forces against a bigot or anybody else to create an interaction, isn't somebody harmed by that?

Are you calling private property a "public space" ? That's interesting.

Yes. people are forcing a kind of integration if they insist a person remaining on his private property must interact with somebody else.

Thank you for not misconstruing my recognition of a bigots right to control his OWN property as an endorsement of his thoughts.

When a bigot attempts to control other peoples property he's in the wrong, just like a non bigot would be.

 

[see4]

that is his whole game, use euphemism to describe heinous acts as noble ones, and peaceful acts as acts of aggression.

what he describes as "remaining on their own property" and "leaving others alone" and "being peaceful" and "being indifferent" is much better described as "being hostile and aggressive as a racist to deny goods and services to blacks and gays".

what he describes as "actionable harm" and "rapist tactics" and "slavery" and "rape" and "initiating force" and "being an aggressor" is much better described as "peaceful blacks and gays offering money to vendors in exchange for goods and services".

he refuses to answer three key questions:

1) was harm caused to blacks when store owners refused them service? (YES)
2) can anyone force a store owner to serve members of the public rather than just private members? (NO)
3) what is the most peaceful, non-aggressive, non-hostile way to kick someone out of a store based on their skin color? (THERE IS NONE)

because any one of those three questions topples his entire bigoted, racist, white supremacist worldview.

MLK fought fiercely against white supremacy. he did not want a colorblind society. he wanted to destroy white supremacy, AKA the white hierarchy power structure that robrot yearns for a return to.

i honestly wish america had hate speech laws so that we could prosecute white suprwmacist like robrot who threaten the peace by trying to impose their bigotry upon peaceful members of the public who simply want to buy a soda without being singled out and discriminated against due to the skin color they were born with, or the sexuality they were born with.

Do you think Rob has The Turner Diaries by his bedside table? I think he does. Right on top of his copy of Mein Kampf.

 

[see4]

Being "prejudiced" is a thought..

You are so very very dumb.

 

[Rob Roy]

You are so very very dumb.

Seeking peace is not dumb.

Using force and thinking you will somehow get peace from that....hmmm.

 

[panhead]

So its all cool with you liberal Nazis,,a homo walk's into a bakery,,demands the baker who happens to be, Christian , Jewish or Muslim and demands they make him a wedding reception cake, one with a penis inserted into a ass hole, According to you morons the baker MUST make the cake for the homo,,

If the baker is allready making cakes of dicks & assholes then yes he should serve the homo a dick asshole cake , if dicks & assholes are not a standard product of the bakery then no he shouldnt have to bake shit special for anybody .

 

[see4]

Seeking peace is not dumb.

Using force and thinking you will somehow get peace from that....hmmm.

No Rob, stop.

You said, specifically, "Being prejudiced is a thought.."

That is wildly and categorically false.

The rest of what you said is just as inane and racist.

 

[Grandpapy]

Seeking peace is not dumb.

Using force and thinking you will somehow get peace from that....hmmm.

The peace you seek left this country with the arrival of the white man. You were just born too late.
The force, when applied during the first 5 yrs of life make it almost unnecessary later in life. Teach your children love.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Being "prejudiced" is a thought, no matter how hard we think poorly of that person it doesn't create an actual harm to anybody when we think bad thoughts about him does it ? However when a person goes beyond thinking and uses forces against a bigot or anybody else to create an interaction, isn't somebody harmed by that?

Again, you're not using gov. to force an interaction, you're using gov. to force an interaction from not happening; discrimination

Are you calling private property a "public space" ? That's interesting.

Moot point, civil rights extend to all public & private institutions

Yes. people are forcing a kind of integration if they insist a person remaining on his private property must interact with somebody else.

How is anyone "forcing" anything when business owners have every option to open or close the business, move somewhere else, transition over to something not directly involved in customer service (like cake baking is)?

One thing I was also wondering about that @ see4 brought up earlier was how you seem to ignore history to be able to hold this viewpoint. You can't argue that before civil rights were enacted it was a more peaceful time. Your entire argument supporting your position is the least amount of violence (or "force"), the better, yet society is undeniably more peaceful today than it was then. As far as I can see, your viewpoint cannot account for that

Thank you for not misconstruing my recognition of a bigots right to control his OWN property as an endorsement of his thoughts.

When a bigot attempts to control other peoples property he's in the wrong, just like a non bigot would be.

Yeah, no prob. I think I understand your argument, that is you believe people should be able to do whatever they want with their own property, and I agree with that up until a point where what you're doing with your own property actively harms other people. We've seen examples in our own societies history that show what you propose does cause harm that leads to violence, can you concede that point? Do you believe your right to do what you want with your own property supercedes others right not to be harmed by your actions/beliefs? Do you believe these actions/beliefs don't actually cause harm?

 

[Hazydat620]

There's something in error in your understanding in your first paragraph.
Government should never have been involved in forced segregation. It was wrong. What I mean by that is people shouldn't be prevented from associating if BOTH parties agree to it. If people willingly segregate themselves, how is that your business or mine?

If it's wrong to force people to segregate, it's also wrong to force people to integrate. Know why? Free people don't have others define their human relations for them.

Peaceful relations involve one of two things,

1) a mutual interaction wherein all parties agree to it

2) a mutual understanding that one party or both would prefer not to interact, and both leave each other alone.

In both instances above peace is maintained.



Force Interactions involve this - One party or both create an interaction that is not consensual

In that instance Peace is destroyed.



I win again!!!!

Then these businesses who would like to practice discrimination should have a sign outside of their door to let others who would like to enter, come to the mutual agreement to interact with them before even entering the property/business? Would only seem fair in your perfect world.

 

[Pinworm]

 

[UncleBuck]

Seeking peace is not dumb.

for the twelfth time, what is the most peaceful way to kick someone out of a store because of their skin color?

Using force and thinking you will somehow get peace from that....hmmm.

for the sixth time, who is forced to make their store a public one rather than a private one?

 

[UncleBuck]

Are you calling private property a "public space" ?

oh, so i wasn't invited to walk into this restaurant owner's building and buy a sandwich?

kinda defeats the purpose of opening a restaurant in the first place.

you dumb asshole, stop trying to redefine words to accommodate your white supremacist rhetoric.

 

[UncleBuck]

 

[max420thc]

If the baker is allready making cakes of dicks & assholes then yes he should serve the homo a dick asshole cake , if dicks & assholes are not a standard product of the bakery then no he shouldnt have to bake shit special for anybody .

I agree, the problem is the militant gay will sue him if he doesn't make him a dick cake,
would anyone go to a jewish deli and MAKE them serve you a ham sandwich?
Then sue them for not making them a ham sandwich, that is what this law is about,

 

[Rob Roy]

Again, you're not using gov. to force an interaction, you're using gov. to force an interaction from not happening; discrimination

Moot point, civil rights extend to all public & private institutions

How is anyone "forcing" anything when business owners have every option to open or close the business, move somewhere else, transition over to something not directly involved in customer service (like cake baking is)?

One thing I was also wondering about that @ see4 brought up earlier was how you seem to ignore history to be able to hold this viewpoint. You can't argue that before civil rights were enacted it was a more peaceful time. Your entire argument supporting your position is the least amount of violence (or "force"), the better, yet society is undeniably more peaceful today than it was then. As far as I can see, your viewpoint cannot account for that

Yeah, no prob. I think I understand your argument, that is you believe people should be able to do whatever they want with their own property, and I agree with that up until a point where what you're doing with your own property actively harms other people. We've seen examples in our own societies history that show what you propose does cause harm that leads to violence, can you concede that point? Do you believe your right to do what you want with your own property supercedes others right not to be harmed by your actions/beliefs? Do you believe these actions/beliefs don't actually cause harm?

I don't like bigots, but I can't find a way to justify telling another person how to live their life if they simply think something but confine themselves to their own property. I don't endorse their thoughts, but can't condemn their actions since they are confining themselves to their own property and their own body.

A bigot or anybody else for that matter who goes to another persons property to insist a person behave in a certain way has violated the right of the other party. Even bigots deserve to control their own property, nobody should control others property or body but the owner though.

As far as a more peaceful time, I think you are confusing enforced order with peace. People often do.

A right that everybody should have is to be free from being forced into interactions they do not consent to, that is taken away when one party can make another interact with them. I don't make exceptions to this for government, many do.


I will say even though I am a strong proponent of property rights, I did at one time think government forcing bigots to interact was acceptable. I've since realized I was mistaken as force cannot beget peace.

 

[UncleBuck]

the militant gay will sue him if he doesn't make him a dick cake

[citation needed]

 

[UncleBuck]

I...can't condemn their actions

so you can't condemn someone for refusing to serve your gay son on the basis that he is gay?

bigots deserve to control their own property

for the seventh time, who is forced to make their store a public one rather than a private one?

A right that everybody should have is to be free from being forced into interactions they do not consent to, that is taken away when one party can make another interact with them.

for the eighth time, who is forced to make their store a public one rather than a private one?