• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Supremes: LGBTQ Landmark Decision

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I discriminate between grocery stores. One has all those stupid directional arrows taped on the floor, and fear mask signs and fear mask sheep all over the place and another has far fewer fear masked people. I think being able to discriminate my choices makes me respect others right to make their individual choices too, even when their choices are idiotic and self contradicting. :lol:

If a gay person was having trouble getting insurance, that presents a great opportunity for an entrepreneurial type to offer insurance to gay people. A free market can provide a solution.

Government mandates are never real solutions, since they require the use of offensive force right from the beginning, rather than consensual and peaceful measures. Always being told who you can and cannot associate with or do business with is a clear sign that your "public servants" are really your masters.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I discriminate between grocery stores. One has all those stupid directional arrows taped on the floor, and fear mask signs and fear mask sheep all over the place and another has far fewer fear masked people. I think being able to discriminate my choices makes me respect others right to make their individual choices too, even when their choices are idiotic and self contradicting. :lol:

If a gay person was having trouble getting insurance, that presents a great opportunity for an entrepreneurial type to offer insurance to gay people. A free market can provide a solution.

Government mandates are never real solutions, since they require the use of offensive force right from the beginning, rather than consensual and peaceful measures. Always being told who you can and cannot associate with or do business with is a clear sign that your "public servants" are really your masters.
Click to expand...
insurance isn't the issue- their right to work was..the decision landmark because 6-3..do the math Trumpy* can't.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
insurance isn't the issue- their right to work was..the decision landmark because 6-3..do the math Trumpy* can't.
Click to expand...
Gay people certainly have a right to work if somebody willingly hires them. Gay people certainly have a right to associate with others that wish to associate with them, just like everyone else. Gay people don't have a right to force somebody to associate with them, nobody does and that's kind of creepy and rapey to do that anyway.

What if a guy in a bigfoot suit whined about "discrimination" if an employer refused to let him wear a bigfoot suit at work? Or had protesty parades featuring people who's inner bigfoot wanted government to force companies to have bathrooms that are bigfoot friendly? Try using a regular urinal when you're ummm, "massive" and 8 feet tall.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Gay people certainly have a right to work if somebody willingly hires them. Gay people certainly have a right to associate with others that wish to associate with them, just like everyone else. Gay people don't have a right to force somebody to associate with them, nobody does and that's kind of creepy and rapey to do that anyway.

What if a guy in a bigfoot suit whined about "discrimination" if an employer refused to let him wear a bigfoot suit at work? Or had protesty parades featuring people who's inner bigfoot wanted government to force companies to have bathrooms that are bigfoot friendly? Try using a regular urinal when you're ummm, "massive" and 8 feet tall.
Click to expand...
If someone joins a baseball team on their off time and their boss takes offense because it is a gay team and fires that person, it is discrimination and it is now illegal. That boss could still decide to fire that person, but it doesn't mean that there would not be a cost associated with it in the form of legal fees and likely settlement. Nobody is taking your free will away.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Gay people certainly have a right to work if somebody willingly hires them. Gay people certainly have a right to associate with others that wish to associate with them, just like everyone else. Gay people don't have a right to force somebody to associate with them, nobody does and that's kind of creepy and rapey to do that anyway.

What if a guy in a bigfoot suit whined about "discrimination" if an employer refused to let him wear a bigfoot suit at work? Or had protesty parades featuring people who's inner bigfoot wanted government to force companies to have bathrooms that are bigfoot friendly? Try using a regular urinal when you're ummm, "massive" and 8 feet tall.
Click to expand...
what do you mean by 'willingly'? careful, your racism is showing.

so you're comparing someone's sexual orientation (nothing they chose but I bet your one of those who thinks they can be re-programmed) to someone's dress code?

strawman in the worst way..see schuylaar signature quote same stinkin' thinkin' lizard brain mindset..

psychcentral.com

10 Tips to Manage Stinking Thinking

Common cognitive distortions, such as overgeneralization, can influence how you feel. But there are strategies to help you manage "stinking thinking".
psychcentral.com psychcentral.com
 
Last edited:
CunningCanuk

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
What if a guy in a bigfoot suit whined about "discrimination" if an employer refused to let him wear a bigfoot suit at work? Or had protesty parades featuring people who's inner bigfoot wanted government to force companies to have bathrooms that are bigfoot friendly? Try using a regular urinal when you're ummm, "massive" and 8 feet tall.
Click to expand...
Very lame comparison Bob.

Swing and a miss!
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
what do you mean by 'willingly'? careful, your racism is showing.

so you're comparing someone's sexual orientation (nothing they chose but I bet your one of those who thinks they can be re-programmed) to someone's dress code?

strawman in the worst way..see schuylaar signature quote same stinkin' thinkin' lizard brain mindset..

psychcentral.com

10 Tips to Manage Stinking Thinking

Common cognitive distortions, such as overgeneralization, can influence how you feel. But there are strategies to help you manage "stinking thinking".
psychcentral.com psychcentral.com
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you've made an error in presenting my belief and argument, I'm sure it was unintentional on your part. :)

No, I am not strawmanning, but you might be. I'm comparing freedom to associate or disassociate for every person and describing how the freedom part works.

If all people are equal, that equality is based in the equal right of SELF DETERMINATION.

Every person, regardless of their race or sexual orientation should have the right to associate with others who wish to associate with them. No person or persons have the right to force an unwilling person or persons to associate with them, especially when the person being forced to associate is remaining on their own property. You do believe your property is yours to determine the use of, right?

Why a person doesn't want to associate with somebody may be interesting, but ultimately the choice to associate must be either mutually consensual , VOLUNTARY, (peaceful) or nonconsensual, INVOLUNTARY (not peaceful) .
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
If someone joins a baseball team on their off time and their boss takes offense because it is a gay team and fires that person, it is discrimination and it is now illegal. That boss could still decide to fire that person, but it doesn't mean that there would not be a cost associated with it in the form of legal fees and likely settlement. Nobody is taking your free will away.
Click to expand...

So, you believe that OTHER PEOPLE should decide who you MUST associate with and on which terms ?

How is that consistent with the equality of SELF determination that every person should have?
 
howellman howell

howellman howell

Active Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm afraid you've made an error in presenting my belief and argument, I'm sure it was unintentional on your part. :)

No, I am not strawmanning, but you might be. I'm comparing freedom to associate or disassociate for every person and describing how the freedom part works.

If all people are equal, that equality is based in the equal right of SELF DETERMINATION.

Every person, regardless of their race or sexual orientation should have the right to associate with others who wish to associate with them. No person or persons have the right to force an unwilling person or persons to associate with them, especially when the person being forced to associate is remaining on their own property. You do believe your property is yours to determine the use of, right?

Why a person doesn't want to associate with somebody may be interesting, but ultimately the choice to associate must be either mutually consensual , VOLUNTARY, (peaceful) or nonconsensual, INVOLUNTARY (not peaceful) .
Click to expand...
Apparenrtly according to the constitution.... you are wrong.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm afraid you've made an error in presenting my belief and argument, I'm sure it was unintentional on your part. :)

No, I am not strawmanning, but you might be. I'm comparing freedom to associate or disassociate for every person and describing how the freedom part works.

If all people are equal, that equality is based in the equal right of SELF DETERMINATION.

Every person, regardless of their race or sexual orientation should have the right to associate with others who wish to associate with them. No person or persons have the right to force an unwilling person or persons to associate with them, especially when the person being forced to associate is remaining on their own property. You do believe your property is yours to determine the use of, right?

Why a person doesn't want to associate with somebody may be interesting, but ultimately the choice to associate must be either mutually consensual , VOLUNTARY, (peaceful) or nonconsensual, INVOLUNTARY (not peaceful) .
Click to expand...

apparently the Supremes disagreed with your assessment.

Supreme Court: CONSENT NOT REQUIRED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top