TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
Well I'd like to give him a chance to speak up in his own defense, if he chooses.
indiana
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
when he states that just because it is reprehensible doesn't mean it wasn't consensual, that is him speaking up in his own defense.
you are quick to get angry with me, but you completely dismiss all the racists and pedophile apologists on this forum, you even befriend those types.
you are a fucking loser, murdoch. 9 bans should have given you a hint already.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The gov. regulates the food industry, it doesn't control what restaurant owners put on their menus or the general workings of the business
Civil rights trump property rights (which is a moot point because property owners do not have the right to discriminate)
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Oh dear Poopy Pants you are forgetting the usurpation of what once private property being converted into something else by your beloved nanny state aren't you?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your first statement is so far off, I'll leave it alone to save you from yourself.
Do you think people have a kind of property right in themselves, in that they should be able to control their own body and other people shouldn't control them?
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
I don't dismiss racism or pedophilia.
But the man deserves a chance to defend himself against your accusations, yes?
see4
Well-Known Member
You can say this to him until you are blue in the face. He simply does not believe in that. He chooses to hold the same core values as racist bigots. He denies he is a racist bigot, but shares in their values. That's honestly worse than a racist bigot, because he's essentially a hypocritical racist bigot.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thank you for being reasonable. I think Uncle Buck may have inhaled a little too many dung fumes and has resorted to conflating recognition of something as approval of that same something. He seems more angry than usual tonite too.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
My core philosophy is one based in non harming.
Logically that leads to the idea that I have no right to make another person serve me or to violate their right to refuse interacting with me. How does that make me a racist?
Your core philosophy seems to reject that.
see4
Well-Known Member
Your philosophy only works in a Utopian society. Your philosophy is science fiction. Human nature can never be Utopian. There will never exist a time ever when we all "just get along". We therefore need rules, and we need "leaders" to sometimes "forcibly coerce" those who do not want to maintain civil society.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's still private property. it can be either open to the public as a business or a private business. the owner controls that decision so that no one can force him to interact, aka be raped and made a slave by blacks and gays offering him money for his goods and services.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
good job, pedophile apologist. no wonder you are on your 9th sock puppet account.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's because you think it should be OK to harm others based upon their race.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No I think it is okay for a person to chose how they will use their OWN property and their OWN body. That doesn't mean I would do as they do, it means I respect its not my call.
I don't think it is okay for others to make those choices for you under threat of violence. You do.
You are painted in a corner thug. You think making others do things if they want to be left alone is a -okay. Don't rapist use similar tactics? Thieves? Rampant floor shitters? Why yes they do.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It was you that engaged in the heinous act with the bad man.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
for the seventh time, what is the most non-aggressive, peaceful way to kick someone out of a store based on their skin color?
also, did allowing businesses to discriminate based on skin color cause harm to blacks? yes or no.
finally, does anyone have a right to cause harm? yes or no.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you talking about the act of paying a child for sex, which you called voluntary and consensual?
TheHermit
Well-Known Member
I would say they are inversely correlated. Discrimination is always going to exist. It is human nature. However, I think that the law needs to side with the one being discriminated against and not the discriminator.
I will agree with your second point. Christians can be the victims of discrimination just as much as anyone else. Ironically, the perpetrators are often the same people who are against bigotry against Muslims, minorities and gays.
I really don't see this law as being about religion though. It just seems that religion is being used as an excuse for bigotry. If it was about religion, then shouldn't these businesses also want to ban adulterers, divorcees, people who eat pork, those who covet their neighbors, those who engage in usury, etc.
I also don't see how this law would be enforceable. Are business owners going to refuse service just because someone seems gay? I have met many effeminate straight men in my day, and also many gay men you couldn't pick out of a lineup. Where does it stop. What if Muslims don't want to serve Jews, or Protestants not wanting to serve Catholics, or Scientologists not wanting to serve Hindus. The whole concept seems stupid and has the potential to get out hand. Is the day going to come when I have to make sure all of my political and religious beliefs must match a shopkeeper before he will make me a sandwich?
TheHermit
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I have to deal with people that I would rather not over the course of my day. It is called being employed.