Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

Status
Not open for further replies.
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
pSi007 said:
Some guy did this in a County Court bathroom and they arrested him and took him to jail. :-? Now that is a vicious case of the illegal shits.. Yes, Even your shit can be brought to court. Lawyers are trying to find a way to sue the shit from being born in bigoted ass. Only old people, children, and blacks are allowed to make a dirty smell without legal repercussion.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/09/4336443/feces-covered-man-arrested-after.html
Click to expand...
i think i see what happened with you, you walked in on your wife/girlfriend cheating on you with a black man.

you started to cry and said "stop, you're hurting her" and she told you that she liked it and to please close the door.

and that's why psi is the racist idiot we see in front of us today.
 
pSi007

pSi007

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
i think i see what happened with you, you walked in on your wife/girlfriend cheating on you with a black man.
Click to expand...

My wife would never go for anything less than 9" length, (top of pubic bone to tip of gland), and 6" in girth.. I guess rules it out your poisonous Alabama Black Snake, I am a bigger man than you. ;)
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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
Click to expand...
The private property owner has two justifications. If they are in fact the owner, and as long as they are "owning" their property, but not the property of another, they aren't taking anything away from anybody. Unless you think using your own stuff as you see fit, is stealing from somebody else. They also have not committed an act of aggression, since controlling only your stuff and not the stuff of others, is a neutral act, not an act of aggression.

Ownership has to include control over something, or it no longer means ownership.

The second justification is it is not up to any non owners to determine how another person will use their property. Why is government an exception to this? Governments can and do steal property rights, but there justification comes from a gun, not a reciprocal mutual respect for the right of people to own themselves and control their own property.

As far as legal justification, presently there isn't any. However legal things are statutory constructs and do not have to follow logic, rather they can follow the whims of the electorate. For example, it is illegal for us to own our bodies completely, yet most people here, other than a few known prohibitionists think we all should control our own property, ie, our bodies.

The term "public setting" when you use it is a bit of a misnomer that was created by a legal construction. Public setting could be construed as property not owned by a private individual, like a park, a road, etc. It would be difficult for a person to tell another they can't be there in that kind of a public setting. Why? Because that bigot doesn't own the road, the park etc. I suggest there is something called a "public setting" that has usurped to some degree the definition of private property.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
they aren't taking anything away from anybody
Click to expand...
yes they, they are depriving gays or blacks of the same set of goods and services that the rest of us have access to based on the color of their skin or sexual orientation.

and you can not help yourself but to defend this type of racist practice.

:clap:
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it was actually just southerners of any political stripe, hence why you guys were subject to preclearance as a geographic whole, rather than democrat controlled legislatures.

you can try to rewrite, revise, and distort history all you want, it won't change anything about your racist home or your racist views.
Click to expand...
Tha Fuk it was.
Go back and look.... it was Southerners of a very specific mindset and party.
The philosophy was simple, we are right and you are wrong, should you not agree you will be ridiculed, and possibly terrorized because we are superior in our thinking and our actions are righteous.

Echoed exactly as it is today through your partisan character attacks, of course now god is not on your side so you claim the greater good as your god.....the "scientists" "consensus" likewise.....all simply killing in the name of.

Your smear is shit stained in the absence of logic and sound reasoning.

My point is simply that the Constitution limits rights of Government, and protects unlimited Individual Rights, and it just seems to me that violation of any rights should actually be a CRIMINAL offense, not a CIVIL cause of action....what you are pushing for are fines to dictate behavior, because you feel that people are too stupid to do the right thing on their own.

Unless of course you don't agree with your own bullcrap.
So why is it you think people should have to settle for Civil Rights for society and not be able to claim a much higher Individual Right of what ever the fuck they want as long as there is no injured party?

BTW I have been to no less than THREE "wedding ceremonies" for gay couples in the south....cake was no problem; A non-issue.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
it was Southerners of a very specific mindset and party.
Click to expand...
it sure was...YOUR mindset.

the mindset that civil rights is not a good idea because it will just make racists like you more bitter.

twostrokenut said:
I have been to no less than THREE "wedding ceremonies" for gay couples in the south....
Click to expand...
and i'm sure you have many black friends, a black grandmother, and a black mentor who taught you how to deal with all those bullies at school as well.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yes they, they are depriving gays or blacks of the same set of goods and services that the rest of us have access to based on the color of their skin or sexual orientation.

and you can not help yourself but to defend this type of racist practice.

:clap:
Click to expand...
What I am defending is the right of everybody to control their own property, but not the property of others. I'm also defending the right of everyone to control their own body, which is a primary property right, Mr. Prohibitionist.

Sometimes people will do things we may not agree with, but if they aren't taking something from another, as in depriving that other from using their property how that person sees fit, how is it your business or mine to make them use their property or their body in ways we would force them to? Your inability to differentiate between an act of aggression and an action of a property owner using their property as they see fit is pretty apparent.

If you like to initiate aggression, by making others use their property in ways you choose for them....what does that make you?

You and I share a belief that it is stupid for people to be racists, etc. or at least I think we do. Our difference is, you don't respect the right of others to use their property or their body as they see fit. I do.

Goods and services are "owned" aren't they? If you truly own something who decides the disposition of that something? If it isn't you that makes that decision, are you still the owner? No, you are not. How do you deprive someone of something they do not own? Before you run off crying racist, try answering some questions.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
What I am defending is the right of everybody to control their own property, but not the property of others. I'm also defending the right of everyone to control their own body, which is a primary property right, Mr. Prohibitionist.

Sometimes people will do things we may not agree with, but if they aren't taking something from another, as in depriving that other from using their property how that person sees fit, how is it your business or mine to make them use their property or their body in ways we would force them to? Your inability to differentiate between an act of aggression and an action of a property owner using their property as they see fit is pretty apparent.

If you like to initiate aggression, by making others use their property in ways you choose for them....what does that make you?

You and I share a belief that it is stupid for people to be racists, etc. or at least I think we do. Our difference is, you don't respect the right of others to use their property or their body as they see fit. I do.

Goods and services are "owned" aren't they? If you truly own something who decides the disposition of that something? If it isn't you that makes that decision, are you still the owner? No, you are not. How do you deprive someone of something they do not own? Before you run off crying racist, try answering some questions.
Click to expand...
no one asked you to repeat your tired old bullshit again, you are still saying the same thing. you are defending the racist practices of the south as you have done in the past because you are too racist to even admit that it caused harm.

answer this, yes or no: did the denial of service to blacks in the south pre civil rights cause harm to blacks?

yes or no.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no one asked you to repeat your tired old bullshit again, you are still saying the same thing. you are defending the racist practices of the south as you have done in the past because you are too racist to even admit that it caused harm.

answer this, yes or no: did the denial of service to blacks in the south pre civil rights cause harm to blacks?

yes or no.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you define harm. I define harm as an action taken against somebody that prevents that person from controlling themself or their property. You don't "cause harm" by ignoring a person. Harm requires action. Are you harming the starving kids in India? No. You could send them money though couldn't you, you racist! See how that works?

If you had said did the KKK or other bigots cause harm when they went onto somebody elses property or went somewhere they did not own and initiated aggression, I would say that was harmful.

It's kind of funny that you want to make somebody answer a direct question, given your evasive and trollish nature.

I would not have denied service to a person due to their skin color, gender, etc. then or now. That is my personal choice for how I conduct myself with my property.

I would also not have taken away anothers right to own themself or control their own property to force them to associate with people they would prefer not to.


Question for you....

What causes harm is when one person thinks they own another or their property and uses force to achieve that end. Yes or no?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
It all depends on how you define harm. I define harm as an action taken against somebody that prevents that person from controlling themself or their property. You don't "cause harm" by ignoring a person. Harm requires action. Are you harming the starving kids in India? No. You could send them money though couldn't you, you racist! See how that works?

If you had said did the KKK or other bigots cause harm when they went onto somebody elses property or went somewhere they did not own and initiated aggression, I would say that was harmful.

It's kind of funny that you want to make somebody answer a direct question, given your evasive and trollish nature.

I would not have denied service to a person due to their skin color, gender, etc. then or now. That is my personal choice for how I conduct myself with my property.

I would also not have taken away anothers right to own themself or control their own property to force them to associate with people they would prefer not to.


Question for you....

What causes harm is when one person thinks they own another or their property and uses force to achieve that end. Yes or no?
Click to expand...
that's not a yes or no.

put your cognitive dissonance to the side for a second and give a yes or no answer: do you think blacks were harmed by the denial of service they endured in the pre civil rights south?
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it sure was...YOUR mindset.

the mindset that civil rights is not a good idea because it will just make racists like you more bitter.



and i'm sure you have many black friends, a black grandmother, and a black mentor who taught you how to deal with all those bullies at school as well.
Click to expand...
Ah the tired old "I have a black friend" argument...which as we all well know is simply a PC way of being racist.

My mindset is of equal unlimited individual rights for all Americans...the exact opposite of the oppressive Democratic mindset of the Minority of the old South.

Anyone refusing to serve gays deserves to have competitors take their market share...would that put them out of business?
Of course it should........now remind us all of the Democrat racist businesses that did just fine despite boycotts a long time ago in which the same mindset that perpetrated the discriminatory actions now presents themselves the savior of all that is bad thinking by vain attempts "legislate" morality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top