Mississippi governor signs law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couple

[Deleted]

At this best to not waste your time, I made the mistake yesterday. No matter what gets said he just repeats himself with terrible analogies that make no sense.

Yea, im afraid you are right

[Phlegethon]

While other states and cities in the east backed away, Mississippi said fuck it, we are ass backward anyway what are we going to lose

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...405-story.html

Fuck yeah! Murricah!

It just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Vote Trump for the whole package. o/

- - - Updated - - -

The federal law you speak of does not cover LGBT people, not yet.

That is precisely what laws are, it's one group of people trying to force a particular belief onto the rest of society. Please find me a single example where this is not the case.

That's just stupid. A law is not a belief system. Ya derp.

[Noradin]

I propose letting a business owner choose whom they wish to serve. I would never want to force a black business owner to serve the KKK. I would never force a gay business owenr to serve the WBC. I would never force a Jewish business owner to serve neo-Nazis.

Yes, and you would never force a KKK member to serve a black, or a neo-Nazi to serve a jew.
You would let them starve.
We heard you.

You want to go back a few hundred years.

[Machismo]

Right, so it is okay to discriminate against LGBT people then!?

Nope, not being able to run a red light isn't forcing any beliefs, and those beliefs you are talking about are the rules we as a society agreed to live by, we agreed to this by living here. If you are not okay with these rules, you are able to leave at any time. So no, law isn't forcing anyone.

Yes you are in favor of it, why else would you give people the means to do this? Private segregation is just as damaging to freedom as anything else. You not wanting to consort with pedophiles is yet again a very very poor comparison, you segregating your self in your private life is not even in the same ball park as you running a business. No one is forcing them to have that job, if they do not wish to serve some sort of people then they should not be at that job, its not the jobs fault that there are people you do not like.

No you do not believe in treating people equally, because you think it is okay for people to discriminate. So by definition, you do not believe in treating people equally. I do, you don't, you think you do, but really, you don't.

No, dating someone isn't a job or a public space/service, stop it with the really stupid comparisons please, you have not gotten a single one even remotely right.

- - - Updated - - -



Sigh really!?!?? By pointing out the difference im discriminating.. Please try a bit harder...


And how is that going to work exactly? Everyone is worthy of not getting discriminated against, but you are free to discriminate others as much as you want to. Yea, right

I didn't say it was OK to do it, only that I'm not fgoing to force someone else to not do it. I do not have the same desire to ban every behavior I don't like that you have.

Yes, red light laws are forcing one group's beliefs onto others. People believe you should not be able to do it, so they passed a aw banning it. That's for helping to prove my point.

I'm not in favor of murder, but I'm not going to ban every knife, gun, and baseball bat to take away their means to commit murder. Just because I do not support soemthing, does not mean I should feel compelled to ban it. However, by stating that people should be forced to serve everyone, you are saying that you would force a black business owner to serve the KKK. You are saying you would force a gay business owner to serve the WBC. Youa re saying you would force a Jewish business owner to serve neo-Nazis. Nowe, if you are not saying that, then you are being a hypocrite.

I don't care if people choose to discriminate, I care if the government does. People discriminate every single fucking day. Are there things you refuse to eat? Then you are discriminating. Are there people you refuse to date? Then you are discriminating. On top of that, you seem to unable to grasp a very simple concept. Just because I do not support something, does not mean I wish to ban it. That is precisely how gay marriage was banned in the first place. Congratulations, you are trying to force your beliefs onto others, just like those homophobic bigots.

Yes, pointing out differ4ences IS discrimination:



1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
"victims of racial discrimination"


2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

Pay close attention to that second example.

I said everyone is worhty of freedom, it's a shame you don't feel the same. Why do you hate freedom so much?

- - - Updated - - -

i really feel like we're going in circles here. the same arguments from the same bigots from the last 40+ pages about the same shitty analogies and examples. someone tell me i'm wrong and we've made SOME progress.

Please show any example of me being bigoted against gay people. I'll wait.

- - - Updated - - -

Fuck yeah! Murricah!

It just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Vote Trump for the whole package. o/

- - - Updated - - -



That's just stupid. A law is not a belief system. Ya derp.

A law is a belief forced onto others. SOmeone believes something should be a certain way, and they use the government to force everyone to comply.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and you would never force a KKK member to serve a black, or a neo-Nazi to serve a jew.
You would let them starve.
We heard you.

You want to go back a few hundred years.

And you would force a Jewish person to serve neo-Nazis. You would force a black person to serve the KKK. You would force a gay person to serve the WBC. I heard you... and I find it despicable.

- - - Updated - - -

At this point its best to not waste your time, I made the mistake yesterday. No matter what gets said he just repeats himself with terrible analogies that make no sense.

You don't like the analogies, because it means you have to choose between being a hypocrite, or an authoritarian asshole.

[Noradin]

And you would force a Jewish person to serve neo-Nazis. You would force a black person to serve the KKK. You would force a gay person to serve the WBC. I heard you... and I find it despicable.

At least that way everyone gets what they need to live and vigilantism and witchhunts are avoided.
We tried what you popose in the past. I brought us the holocaust and the apartheid state. Let's try again, maybe it will work this time? Is that what you are proposing?

[Machismo]

At least that way everyone gets what they need to live and vigilantism and witchhunts are avoided.
We tried what you popose in the past. I brought us the holocaust and the apartheid state. Let's try again, maybe it will work this time? Is that what you are proposing?

At least you are not a hypocrite, I'll give you that. I think you are an authoritarian, but then again, most people are.

What I am proposing is freedom, nothing more, nothing less.

We did not try what I proposed in the past. In the past, we had government-mandated discrimiantion and segregation, something I strongly oppose.

[Noradin]

At least you are not a hypocrite, I'll give you that. I think you are an authoritarian, but then again, most people are.

What I am proposing is freedom, nothing more, nothing less.

What you propose is anarchy, or more explicitly: You propose the freedom to be a bully and take the freedom of others because you are too afraid to take your part of the responsibility everyone has for the society they live in.

A freedom is just an illusion if it is not guaranteed by society; if people do not take responsibility.

Do you know why people today have the freedom to go to work and bring back food and then go home and cook it?
Because we agreed not to have the "freedom" to take whatever home just happens to be left alone while the owner is at work.
If we have that second one we cannot have the first. We as a society have to decide which freedoms we want and need.
If we decide not to care, then we will lose all of them.

[Ripster42]

so your basically agreeing with me then?

Yes, agreeing with you. And I'd expect the SC to rule 5-3 on this issue if it makes it there, as it was one of the dissenting votes who died.

[Machismo]

What you propose is anarchy, or more explicitly: You propose the freedom to be a bully and take the freedom of others because you are too afraid to take your part of the responsibility everyone has for the society they live in.

A freedom is just an illusion if it is not guaranteed by society, if people do not take responsibility.

Is refusing to serve someone taking more freedom away that forcing them to serve someone? No. The person who is refused can simply find a viable alternative. The person being forced to do something is on his own property, so more of his freedom is being restricted.

Now, if the argument were to be made (which I do not think it can be) that the person refused service is more restricted, then that brings up the issue of protected classes. If that were the case, then protected classes would be entirely innecessary, and discriminatory in their own right. If it is to be deemed that the person who was refused service has more of his freedoms restricted, then the only logical course of action would be to ban all discrimination for any reason whatsoever, making protected classes entirely moot. All discrimination within a business environment, regardless of the reason, would be outlawed. Let me know when people actually start proposing such things. Mind you, this would mean the inability to discriminate based on anything deemed offensive, including things like nudity.

Now of course, the argument would be that there are laws against public nudity, but that's just another form of discrimination.

[Noradin]

Can you guarantee that there always is a viable alternative?
Because that never worked in the past.

If you can guarantee such for all cases that could possibly come up, then yes I would concede that the person refused was less restricted than the one who holds the business.
If you cannot then I want to point out that there are essential services every person needs for which society needs to guarantee there is no discrimination. Do you propose making a non-controversial, exhaustive list which businesses those should be?

[akris15]

You guys need to quit arguing with the anarchist. I mean it's been like 70 some pages and you should realize by now in his mind he is right and you guys are wrong and nothing what you guys will say will change his mind regardless of how poor his arguments or his fantasy of pure freedom is.

[Machismo]

Can you guarantee that there always is a viable alternative?
Because that never worked in the past.

Why would I need to guarantee? The only way a person could claim to be a victim, is if there was no actual viable alternative. In such instances, it should be handled on a case-by-case basis, as that would allow for more freedom. It's the blanket restriction that I have a problem with.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys need to quit arguing with the anarchist. I mean it's been like 70 some pages and you should realize by now in his mind he is right and you guys are wrong and nothing what you guys will say will change his mind regardless of how poor his arguments or his fantasy of pure freedom is.

At least I'm not a hypocrite... or an authoritarian.

[breadisfunny]

Why would I need to guarantee? The only way a person could claim to be a victim, is if there was no actual viable alternative. In such instances, it should be handled on a case-by-case basis, as that would allow for more freedom. It's the blanket restriction that I have a problem with.

- - - Updated - - -



At least I'm not a hypocrite... or an authoritarian.

authoritarians do what must be done to maintain law,order and discipline in this world. at least i'm not an anarchist screaming about freedoms being trampled on. those are the worst.

[Noradin]

Why would I need to guarantee? The only way a person could claim to be a victim, is if there was no actual viable alternative. In such instances, it should be handled on a case-by-case basis, as that would allow for more freedom. It's the blanket restriction that I have a problem with.

So you propose provisions for when that case might come along, or do you popose waiting until it goes wrong?

You are an anarchist, which is just special form of "hyporcite".
You are proposing the freedom to be a bully and claim that would improve the freedom of everyone when all you do is arguing to set up a system where everyone is always under threat to lose all their freedoms (and their life).

[Machismo]

authoritarians do what must be done to maintain law,order and discipline in this world. at least i'm not an anarchist screaming about freedoms being trampled on. those are the worst.

Hitler was an authoritarian, doing what he thought "must" be done. If you are fine with being an authoritarian, good on you. If you want to be a hypocrite, be my guest. However, don't complain when you get called out for it.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

[Breccia]

How about projecting the fact that they are what they hate?

Actually, there is a minor amount of truth to that.

[Machismo]

So you propose provisions for when that case might come along, or do you popose waiting until it goes wrong?

You are an anarchist, which is just special form of "hyporcite".

I'm not an anarchist, anarchy is mathematically impossible, as it has no means by which to deal with the outliers within a society. I simply oppose the idea of blanket legislation in order to force one's beliefs onto others.

If you can show how I'm a hypocrite, then please do so. I have always stated that my goal is the most possible freedom (that is not anarchy).

[Felya]

Hitler was an authoritarian, doing what he thought "must" be done. If you are fine with being an authoritarian, good on you. If you want to be a hypocrite, be my guest. However, don't complain when you get called out for it.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

Hitler didn't tell business to accept everyone, he specificly granted them the right not to.

Why do you love Hitler so much?

[akris15]

Power word: Godwin activated

[Felya]

I'm not an anarchist, anarchy is mathematically impossible, as it has no means by which to deal with the outliers wihtin a society. I simply oppose the idea of blanket legislation in order to force one's beliefs onto others.

If you can show how I'm a hypocrite, then please do so. I have always stated that my goal is the most possible freedom (that is not anarchy).

You are the one arguing that people should be forcing their beliefs on others. Gay people do not have a shared belief to force onto others.