Gary M Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If this were a law designed to limit the ability of white, straight, Italian men to live freely I bet you'd be up in arms about it. What about the rights of the religious business owner not to have the gay agenda forced on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If the GOP passed this it stands to reason that the Tea Party backed and voted for this? Notice that is a question, any one know what percentage of the Tea Party members pushed this hate legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 What about the rights of the religious business owner not to have the gay agenda forced on them? You make it hard to side with your larger sentiment when you use ridiculous terms like "gay agenda". I'd recommend walking that one back. If the GOP passed this it stands to reason that the Tea Party backed and voted for this? Notice that is a question, any one know what percentage of the Tea Party members pushed this hate legislation? No idea, but it's not "hate legislation". It's protecting the freedom of association. Businesses are private entities, not public property; and their owners must be free to do business as they will, according to their own beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 You make it hard to side with your larger sentiment when you use ridiculous terms like "gay agenda". I'd recommend walking that one back. No idea, but it's not "hate legislation". It's protecting the freedom of association. Businesses are private entities, not public property; and their owners must be free to do business as they will, according to their own beliefs. No, its hate. So, you would repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that said Private Businesses have to serve minorities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share Posted February 23, 2014 What about the rights of the religious business owner not to have the gay agenda forced on them? That simple fact you reduce civil rights down to an "agenda" says all that anyone needs to know about your stance on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 No, its hate. So, you would repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that said Private Businesses have to serve minorities? No, the bill itself isn't about hate, it's about freedom. Yes, some will use that freedom to discriminate; yet multitudes more won't, and will instead use their freedom to boycott discriminatory businesses. And in both cases, it's the right of the individual. You have the right to practice your religious convictions (or to be a bigot, however you prefer to view it). Freedom to do the right thing nessecarily includes freedom to do the wrong thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If the GOP passed this it stands to reason that the Tea Party backed and voted for this? Notice that is a question, any one know what percentage of the Tea Party members pushed this hate legislation? Nice phrasing, working the Tea Parties into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Nice phrasing, working the Tea Parties into the equation. If you want to work them out of it, be my guest, but can you? No, the bill itself isn't about hate, it's about freedom. Yes, some will use that freedom to discriminate; yet multitudes more won't, and will instead use their freedom to boycott discriminatory businesses. And in both cases, it's the right of the individual. You have the right to practice your religious convictions (or to be a bigot, however you prefer to view it). Freedom to do the right thing nessecarily includes freedom to do the wrong thing. So you are ok with the Fed Gov ordering businesses to serve everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) Nice phrasing, working the Tea Parties into the equation. Even if they did, enhancing freedom certainly isn't outside of the sphere of the desires of most tea partiers I know, so while it may not be central to their larger goals, I could certainly see them lending their support to a bill like this, once it was introduced. Further, I don't think it's a bad thing. So you are ok with the Fed Gov ordering businesses to serve everyone? No, see, that would be the opposite of freedom. Edited February 23, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Even if they did, enhancing freedom certainly isn't outside of the sphere of the desires of most tea partiers I know, so while it may not be central to their larger goals, I could certainly see them lending their support to a bill like this, once it was introduced. Further, I don't think it's a bad thing. No, see, that would be the opposite of freedom. No, that would be one person's hate trumping another person's freedom to eat, sleep or get help somewhere. How would a black person be free to travel in the South if businesses wouldnt serve them. Your freedom is only freedom for haters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 That simple fact you reduce civil rights down to an "agenda" says all that anyone needs to know about your stance on the issue. This has nothing to do with civil rights. Gays are not glow in the dark. No one will know their gay till they advertise it as they seem to like to do[seen many straight parades recently?] Yes I can see a business owner, say a restaurant serving breakfast at 9 AM, not wanting 2 guys lip locking at the counter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) No, that would be one person's hate trumping another person's freedom to eat, sleep or get help somewhere. How would a black person be free to travel in the South if businesses wouldnt serve them. Your freedom is only freedom for haters Your definition of freedom isn't internally logically consistent. You don't have the freedom to force others to act in a way you find morally sound, else you are denying them their freedom in the process, and invalidating your own claims to freedom through that action. You have the right to travel anywhere you want, but you don't have the right to make claims on my resources in order to do so. Your right to travel does not trump my right to association. Edited February 23, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Even if they did, enhancing freedom certainly isn't outside of the sphere of the desires of most tea partiers I know, so while it may not be central to their larger goals, I could certainly see them lending their support to a bill like this, once it was introduced. Further, I don't think it's a bad thing. No, see, that would be the opposite of freedom. No, Gatortard has an agenda and that agenda is to make the Tea Parties appear to back social issues. While this proposed law is not a social issue per se, he will treat it as one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 No, that would be one person's hate trumping another person's freedom to eat, sleep or get help somewhere. How would a black person be free to travel in the South if businesses wouldnt serve them. Your freedom is only freedom for haters That's like saying you have the freedom to throw a punch, but I'm not free to duck it. Your freedom ends where you start telling me what I must do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 That's like saying you have the freedom to throw a punch, but I'm not free to duck it. Your freedom ends where you start telling me what I must do. OMG, STop, that is really stupid! A punch? Sometimes you just say the stupidest chit As to your second point, are you seriously saying Denny's has no freedom because they have to serve black people? And my point about hurting freedom because blacks coiuld not travel was argued in Suprem Court and carried the day, see Heart of Atlanta motel vs US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 OMG, STop, that is really stupid! A punch? Sometimes you just say the stupidest chit As to your second point, are you seriously saying Denny's has no freedom because they have to serve black people? And my point about hurting freedom because blacks coiuld not travel was argued in Suprem Court and carried the day, see Heart of Atlanta motel vs US Of course, I forgot, you lack the brains to understand metaphor. So let me put it this way: if Denny's has to serve black people, then Denny's freedoms are infringed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 You make it hard to side with your larger sentiment when you use ridiculous terms like "gay agenda". I'd recommend walking that one back. . Do you deny that the LGBT have targeted businesses that would deny them so that they could cry discrimination? That simple fact you reduce civil rights down to an "agenda" says all that anyone needs to know about your stance on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) So let me put it this way: if Denny's has to serve black people, then Denny's freedoms are infringed. This pretty much sums it all up. I understand the progressive and statist need to define those they disagree with as people who hate, but they simply look foolish to the average American who knows that a gay couple being refused by a Christian baker does not mean the gay couple will be refused by all bakers. Forcing the one baker who refused them to go against their faith or go out of business should rattle everyone to the bone. But no. The baker hates so they must be made to care. or close their business. Sidenote: someone commented about me not being a minority earlier. I'm a white man in California and as of 2013, that makes me a minority. Headin' to Sacramento next week to find out all the free stuff that's available to me. Edited February 24, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Do you deny that the LGBT have targeted businesses that would deny them so that they could cry discrimination? The LGBT community, if you can even call it that, is not some monolith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) This BS about Denny's has been ginned up by the clan with a tan (Jessie and Al). Many Denny's not at exits that are busy 24/7 had only a waitress and cook working at night, the manager would go home at midnight and the manager of the whole store would come in at 6 AM( I worked ay one about 30 years ago). A bus with a black choir pulled into one after midnight. The waitress told them of the staffing situation and it would likely be at least an hour before everyone could be served. If they wanted quicker service, they could go to the nearest Denny's that had a much larger staffThey even offered to call that store and have them prepare for the rush and start preparing the drinks. The director of the choir took this as racism and got the klan wit a tan involved. PS: "The klan with a tan" was coined by Thomas Sowell.If you don't know who he is, look him up. PSS: I also live in CA. I am a white man of Polish extraction and a Bills fan. I am also a minority. Edited February 24, 2014 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts