Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Nobody forced the woman to become a baker, she chose that all on her own fully aware of the fact that she would likely have to bake for people she didn't always agree with, that's the nature of running a business
indiana
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
public store owners do not have a right to decline an interaction based on skin color or sexuality.
ya see, we already tried your dream of bigotry, spaMBLA. it harmed people, so we outlawed it.
harming others is a right no one possesses.
you are calling your gay son a rapist for trying to offer money to businesses who are bigoted.
you offer no condemnation for the hostile, non-peaceful bigots, but you call your own son a rapist for peacefully offering them money.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yet that's exactly what you spam for daily, you want to allow racists and bigots to harm and deprive others, including your gay son.
why are you such a bigot?
see4
Well-Known Member
I know you have a really hard time grasping this concept, but let me try to break it down for you in dumb dumb terms, by use of an example.
Say that your gay son goes to a store that is open to the public and is immediately forcibly removed simply because of his sexual preference. You are basically defending the store who kicked your gay son, rather than your son. I understand that your argument is that your gay sword swallowing son, assuming he does the sword swallowing act in local carnivals, has the right to not go to that store at all, which currently he has that same right. But what I don't understand is that you willfully ignore the fact that these discriminatory ways were once acceptable and had a profoundly negative impact on society for many years. I don't understand why you want that again? The only logical conclusion is that you are a racist bigot who hates his son.
Family first man. Set aside your utter contempt for society and think about your family and gay son. I should ask, does he swallow swords? You and your family seem like a circus act to me.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so then what is the least aggressive, most peaceful way to kick your gay son out of a store because he is gay?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
a person who discriminates against their customers based on race, as you want to allow, is a racist.
if they do it based on sexuality, as you want to allow, they are a bigot.
you are both, and a possible pedophile to boot.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, that's the nature of redefining property that was once controlled by the owner as controlled by persons that are not the owner.
Also, I hope you understand I am not advocating gender preference discrimination. I thinks its silly. I do think though that forcing a person to serve somebody is not the best way to ensure peace. Nor is removing a persons choice to interact or not interact with others a good thing.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Every American has the right to equal protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and gender. A person refusing goods/services based on race, color, religion, sex or gender is breaking the law. So this "unwilling person" in your example, by law, has to serve them. They have the right vacate the sales business if they have a problem with that.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
forced integration?
you have to be forced to interact with minorities?
the only people that call it "forced integration" are really racists like you.
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
Society
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
possibly because what you describe as "indifference" and "remaining on their property" is more accurately described as "denying service to people based on their skin color" and being "hostile and racist" and "causing harm to others".
learn what words mean you racist.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, not public store owners, and not on the basis of skin color and sexuality.
we tried that and it harmed people.
no one has the right to harm people you dumb racist.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Wendys called and said they were losing business. They weren't sure if it was due to their bigotry or the unclean bathroom facilities.
Too late, we went to McDonalds where they don't discriminate. Have a nice day.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Using force to make people interact is not a good policy. In fact many (most) of the worlds problems can be traced to that policy.
Maybe its time to try something else, like peaceful and voluntary consensual interactions.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
peacefully handing money to people is not "initiating force".
AKA refusing service to blacks and gays.
because it causes harm.
they are, it's called a private club.
yes, we know. you are forced. you wouldn't integrate otherwise.
so refusing service to gays and blacks is defensive force then?
LOL.
you are a racist loser.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If a person doesn't want to associate with you and you insist on the interaction, that seems like a shitty thing to do...doo doo face.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the owner still controls the property, private club or public business is still their decision you rancid accumulation of equine dung.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Wendys called and said they were losing business. They weren't sure if it was due to their bigotry or the unclean bathroom facilities.
Too late, we went to McDonalds where they don't discriminate. Have a nice day.
so then what is the least aggressive, most peaceful way to kick your gay son out of a store because he is gay?