Gene Frenkle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 The fact that an activist court decided to co-opt the meaning of words, and then nullify their prior meaning does not add any weight to your argument. It does not speak, in any way, to the justness of the law; and instead confers arbitrary powers on the courts. The fact that you seem to enjoy living in an Orwellian distopia in which up legally means down doesn't change anything. You're still advocating for a world in which voluntary exchange between two willing interested parties has been replaced by the sword. So I should be allowed to deny service at my restaurant to a black man because of his race? They're running a private business. They should be allowed to selectively deny services, since those services aren't vital (e.g. they're not running a private ambulance service.) Same question as above. Also, that's an opinion, not what the law says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 So I should be allowed to deny service at my restaurant to a black man because of his race? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Yes So the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing in your opinion. Duly noted, thanks. The empathy is strong with this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) So the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing in your opinion. Duly noted, thanks. The empathy is strong with this board. What are you? A three-year-old? Grow the hell up. Let's count all the successful restaurants in the country today that refuse to serve blacks. Then let's get back to your point which was, as best as we can tell, "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, but if you disagree with me, you're a bigot who thinks the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing." Someone just took the brass ring of stupidity -- amazIngly -- out of gatorman's clutch. Nice work, fool. Edited August 27, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 So the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing in your opinion. Duly noted, thanks. The empathy is strong with this board. Yup my thinking that a restaurant, or any privately ran company, should have the right to serve or not serve anyone they choose means I consider the civil rights act was a bad thing. Quite the leap you took there. Let business choose who they want or don't want to serve and let the market run them out of business. Hey Gene ole boy, the 50's called and want YOUR empathy back. I'd call you a one trick pony but that would be an insult to one trick ponies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 What are you? A three-year-old? Grow the hell up. Let's count all the successful restaurants in the country today that refuse to serve blacks. Then let's get back to your point which was, as best as we can tell, "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, but if you disagree with me, you're a bigot who thinks the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing." Someone just took the brass ring of stupidity -- amazIngly -- out of gatorman's clutch. Nice work, fool. WTF are you talking about? Restaurants are not allowed to refuse blacks based on their race. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case before 1964. If it was, that whole thing wouldn't have been necessary. What kind of a fantasy land are you living in? Yup my thinking that a restaurant, or any privately ran company, should have the right to serve or not serve anyone they choose means I consider the civil rights act was a bad thing. Quite the leap you took there. Let business choose who they want or don't want to serve and let the market run them out of business. Hey Gene ole boy, the 50's called and want YOUR empathy back. I'd call you a one trick pony but that would be an insult to one trick ponies. Your view DIRECTLY contradicts a major component of the Civil RIghts Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 WTF are you talking about? Restaurants are not allowed to refuse blacks based on their race. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case before 1964. If it was, that whole thing wouldn't have been necessary. What kind of a fantasy land are you living in? Your view DIRECTLY contradicts a major component of the Civil RIghts Act. Which was an act that was needed..........50 years ago. In my mind it's not needed now. Let the racists do what they want and watch how quickly they go out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Which was an act that was needed..........50 years ago. In my mind it's not needed now. Let the racists do what they want and watch how quickly they go out of business. Unbelievable. The free market solves everything, right? Typical Libertarian pie-in-the-sky idealism. And you think Liberals are Utopian idiots... Thankfully for all the blacks and gays, the law is quite decidedly not on your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Unbelievable. The free market solves everything, right? Typical Libertarian pie-in-the-sky idealism. And you think Liberals are Utopian idiots... Thankfully for all the blacks and gays, the law is quite decidedly not on your side. I'm a Libertarian?? Ahhh the I speak for the oppressed line. If you think any business would survive getting away with not serving blacks or gays you're a fool. But we know that. This thread has done a good job demonstrating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 WTF are you talking about? Restaurants are not allowed to refuse blacks based on their race. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case before 1964. If it was, that whole thing wouldn't have been necessary. What kind of a fantasy land are you living in? I was responding to your childish response to Jim's answer. That you are unable to follow the simple conversation suggests it's going to be tougher for gatorman to get the ring back then any of us initially thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 So I should be allowed to deny service at my restaurant to a black man because of his race? A private citizen should be free to associate, or not, with anyone he wants, or not, for any reason. Anything else is tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 So I should be allowed to deny service at my restaurant to a black man because of his race? Yes, I do. I wouldn't do business with you if you did, but I believe you have a constitutionally protected right to be an asshoe. Also, that's an opinion, not what the law says. That a private establishment should be allowed to discriminate? I never said it was anything other than opinion. Again, I believe people have a constitutionally protected right to be !@#$s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Opinions are like... This thread has run it's course for me. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Opinions are like... So stop complaining and pass some more laws to criminalize harmful ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Geno's MO 1. Jump into a thread that is not about religion 2. Make it about religion 3. Show his bigotry at the same time calling everyone else bigots. 4. Realize he's the only one in the thread on his side 5. Call everyone who disagrees with him aholes. 6. Runs away until the next thread that he thinks is about religion but isn't. [golf clap] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Opinions are like... This thread has run it's course for me. Cheers! Perhaps you mean that you're far to much an intellectual coward to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 So I should be allowed to deny service at my restaurant to a black man because of his race? No goofball . . .you can't deny service at your restaurant because of the color of someone's skin. Now you're just at reducto absurdum. The owners of the establishment have a legitimate objection on the basis of religion. I submit that you can't show me any organized religion that advocates discrimination on the basis of skin color. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 Gene would make a good Islamic fanatic what with his unflinching ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 No goofball . . .you can't deny service at your restaurant because of the color of someone's skin. Now you're just at reducto absurdum. The owners of the establishment have a legitimate objection on the basis of religion. I submit that you can't show me any organized religion that advocates discrimination on the basis of skin color. . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity Perhaps you mean that you're far to much an intellectual coward to continue. Yes, that's true. I can only say the exact same thing and hear the exact same tired arguments for so long. It's been played out. Sorry if you're still looking for a fight. Maybe if somebody comes up with something new it might get interesting again, but this particular intellectual coward just can't see any new angle that hasn't been argued over and over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 If you ever let your mind wander away from the national review, real clear politics, glen beck, Fox News, etc, etc... you might actually consider a viewpoint that contradicts your narrow worldview. Of course the chances of that happening are likely about the same as Jesus Christ coming down for the rapture, ascending to the clouds with all of you lunatics and throwing all of us crazy non-fairy-tale-believing heathens into hellfire for all of eternity. You know, cause that's just how your compassionate god (who loves us all) rolls. But I digress... Reading the judge's ruling on actual news sites, it appears that private residence does not apply to these two knuckleheads because they advertise to the public, provide service to the public and are therefore not considered a private residence. You could, for example, live above your very own bar, restaurant, hotel or b&b while not legally being allowed to keep me or anyone else out of your public place of business for any discriminatory reasons whatsoever. The lesson is, I you want your business to service the public, you're not allowed to act like a bigoted a-hole no matter how you want to justify it. God bless 'Merica. I personally have no animosity towards gays, but I think your position is fairly extreme in that you label anyone with any reservations about gay marriage to be a bigoted ass hole. Tolerance at its finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts