Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The point is they're homosexual people, the "people" part at the end there gives them equal rights
Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.
- Thread starter BigNBushy
- Start date
- Status
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nope. i literally have you on record vehemently defending rawn pawl's opposition to title II of civil rights, which was put in place because the racist practices of business owners who "just want to be left alone" (as you might put it so euphemistically) caused major harm to others.
that which causes harm can not be a right, thus you are retarded to keep ascribing such as a "right" or "property right".
that which you call a "property right" in this case is your euphemism for protecting racist business owners over the civil rights of blacks. sounds a lot better when you use your euphemism, but it's still every bit as racist at heart, no matter what words you try to use to disguise the consequences of your ugly, racist views.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
kynes sings a sad song for philippe rushton, yet again.
who, despite being an admitted white separatist, is totally not racist according to kynes.
identical twins do not have identical DNA.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
See I have to agree with you here.
People are people all with the same rights, but we are mostly confusing rights with benefits here
that's where things fall short in discussion.
You don't "submit" an "application" for "registration" or "license" a right...period.
I like how denying service to blacks is still somehow in discussion by the resident troll.
The very party that worked the hardest to deny blacks now uses those acts as rebuttles.....priceless.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
your grasp on history is non-existent.
southerners denied service to blacks and opposed civil rights. in fact, southern republicans had greater opposition to civil rights than southern democrats did.
civil rights was decided along geographic lines, not party lines.
no matter how many times you either demonstrate your willful ignorance of history or tell outright lies, you will not change history.
nor will it change the fact that you do not think that ending those racist practices was a good idea.
bigot.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Again focusing on "civil rights" vote exclusively as if that somehow excuses
Southern democrats bigotry that led to the vote.
Mental derping and goalpost moving ftw
Southern democrats bigotry that led to the vote.
Mental derping and goalpost moving ftw
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what part of "more southern republicans were opposed to civil rights" don't you understand?
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Cut off your right arm. Fist yourself with it. Fail puppets fail.
spazatak
Well-Known Member
funny you should say that as when I was in Sunday School Father Gary used to use his finger and say he was looking for the holy spirit... he never found it but it didnt stop him digging for it
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You say that which causes harm cannot be a right. You are onto something there. Let's play word salad shall we and see where you are advocating aggression, Mr. Prohibitionist Property Rights Thief.
A person owns their own body. Nobody has a right to use another's body without that persons permission or prevent a person from using their own body. When they do this, the aggressor is causing a harm. Even you see this, I hope.
A person owns their physical property and let's say they stay on their own property and make silly faces. You don't like their silly faces because you think they are racist. Yet, nobody has a right to use or alter another's property without that persons permission, even if the property owner is making silly faces or baking KKKakes or not baking Gay peoples cakes, they STILL own their property and their body don't they?
If you agree that the silly faced racist still owns his property and confines his silly faces to his property, the only way another person could make a valid claim of aggression against them is if the silly faced racist came to THEIR property and made silly faces.
You are using the same argument that prohibitionists use, that other people get to decide what you will do with your own property. If you aren't up to your usual troll tricks I admire your tenacity in trying to do the right thing, but to force people we don't agree with to do things with their own property is flat ass wrong. There's your prohibitionist streak coming in.
Do you think that a person who won't use their property the way you would have them use it, has somehow become "not the owner" and that is your justification to make them use it as you would like them too?
I defend property rights for everybody. You defend them for some people when it suits your fancy.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The only way I see this as valid is if the business is private. If it's public, the owner doesn't have a right to discriminate based on things like sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, etc.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your point of view and what I think is your attempt to be fair. I think we both would run our private businesses in a way that did not discriminate based on something silly like race or sexual preference. The key word here is "ours". All people should be able to control what is theirs, but not that which isn't. Legislation that deviates from that is anti property rights.
The term private property means somebody owns it. The term "open to the public" does not remove the ownership of the private property.
The creation of legislation to make people use their private property in certain ways can only do one of two things.
The first thing it can do is REMOVE all or some of the private property owners right of control over their property or it can respect the right. Legislation that removes a right of a person to control their own property is a bad idea. It also changes the nature of ownership and lessens it. A lessened ownership, is no longer ownership.
Let's take the race issue and gay thing out of it for a moment.
A person owns a bar. He wants to allow people to smoke cigars in his bar. The state says he can't let people smoke in his bar. I say the owner should tell the state to fuck off. (gee who would have guessed that?) I am not advocating for smoking cigars. Does a non cigar smoker have the right to go this bar and tell everybody to put out their cigars, despite the owner saying it is okay? I say the non cigar smoker needs to find a place he can go that suits him, but he should not force somebody else to change how they run their property to do it.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Perfectly understood UncleCracker.
What part of "southern democrats perpetrated and carried out the agression that led to the civil rights movement to begin with" are you having trouble with?
See I keep wanting to discuss cause and you keep talking about effect, there's your problem.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What justification do private property owners have to [discriminate against] citizens based on religion, sexual orientation, gender, race, age, ect.?
I don't see refusing service as a private business owners "right" in a country like America. You have a "right" to open a business, but you don't have a "right" to refuse American citizens equal opportunities/goods/services based on personal prejudices. That's my opinion, I'd like to hear what the supreme court had to say about that..
I'm not sure that analogy fits because of second hand smoke. Being black/gay/handicapped, etc. is something that doesn't physically affect anyone else in a public setting, whereas smoking a cigar would
pSi007
Active Member
charades...
A business has the right to refuse service to anyone, if you don't agree with this service, go somewhere else.. Regarding being called a bigot,
, hey, at least I am not considered 13% of the population, commit 50% of the homicides, 60% of violent crime, 50% of the larceny, and 85% of new HIV infections...
am I a rock? am I a tank? am I black? Black and Gay.. hey, there is nothing new.
A business has the right to refuse service to anyone, if you don't agree with this service, go somewhere else.. Regarding being called a bigot,
, hey, at least I am not considered 13% of the population, commit 50% of the homicides, 60% of violent crime, 50% of the larceny, and 85% of new HIV infections...am I a rock? am I a tank? am I black? Black and Gay.. hey, there is nothing new.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Haha! Holy shit!charades...
A business has the right to refuse service to anyone, if you don't agree with this service, go somewhere else.. Regarding being called a bigot,
am I a rock? am I a tank? am I black? Black and Gay.. hey, there is nothing new.
pSi007
Active Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
To be clear, though, I'm laughing at you, not with you
You forgot cycle cell anemia in your racist rant, bro!
- Status