Page 88 of 103 FirstFirst ...
38
78
86
87
88
89
90
98
... LastLast
  1. #1741
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The people who banned gay marriage were saying the exact same thing.
    And...? What is your point?

  2. #1742
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    And...? What is your point?
    My point is that the same people who want to force a business to serve people they do not wish to serve, are no different than those who chose to ban gay marriage. Both want to force their particular beliefs onto everyone else. No thanks.

  3. #1743
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    My point is that the same people who want to force a business to serve people they do not wish to serve, are no different than those who chose to ban gay marriage. Both want to force their particular beliefs onto everyone else. No thanks.
    false equivalency ahoooooooooy.

    Public business benefit from the public, thus are expected to serve the public without discrimination. Refusal to provide service must be due to some sort of individual characteristic -- IE -- intoxication, behavior, etc.

    This, of course, is still ignoring why we're going to turn a blind eye for selective enforcement of a person's views. Last I checked there was no religion on record that listed homosexuality as the only sin. A person's tax dollars supports those businesses -- thus it is only natural to enforce that these businesses operate in a manner in which all of the public benefits.

  4. #1744
    Quote Originally Posted by dir View Post
    People should be able to refuse any interaction with anyone for any reason. That ability should extend to their work and anything that they do. Making people do things that they don't want to do is wrong.
    then have the right to not run a business, but once you get that business license...

  5. #1745
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspellz View Post
    then have the right to not run a business, but once you get that business license...
    How is that any different than when states said that in order to get a marriage license, you had to marry someone of the opposite gender?

    Once again, it's nothing more than people trying to use the government to force their beliefs onto others.

  6. #1746
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, it's nothing more than people trying to use the government to force their beliefs onto others.
    Since when is this a new thing? This conversation seems to ignore the reality that people's rights are infringed upon ALL THE TIME.

    You don't have the right to take someone else's property. You don't have the right to slander or libel.

    "But you are hurting other people!"

    Fine then. You don't have the right to drive without a seat belt. You don't have the right to carry more than 1 ounce of liquid on a plane.

    This whole "but but but my rights" outrage strikes me as a bit shallow, especially when people are crying about losing the ability to selectively discriminate while using their religion as an excuse (but being raging hypocrites about the rest of it).

  7. #1747
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    false equivalency ahoooooooooy.

    Public business benefit from the public, thus are expected to serve the public without discrimination. Refusal to provide service must be due to some sort of individual characteristic -- IE -- intoxication, behavior, etc.

    This, of course, is still ignoring why we're going to turn a blind eye for selective enforcement of a person's views. Last I checked there was no religion on record that listed homosexuality as the only sin. A person's tax dollars supports those businesses -- thus it is only natural to enforce that these businesses operate in a manner in which all of the public benefits.
    It's not a false equivalency, I made it quite clear how they are similar.

    Why should a privately-owned business be forced to serve everyone? Because you, and others, think they should? And to force them to do so, you want to use the government to make them do as you wish. Why do we feel the need to tell people how they can, and cannot discriminate. to do so, is to be discriminatory in our application of forcing non-discrimination. Besides, if a business owner can only discriminate based on an "individual" characteristic, then a Jewish business owner would have to serve neo-Nazis. A black business owner would have to serve the KKK, and a gay business owner would have to serve the Westboro Baptist Church. I would never force someone to do that, would you?

    The solution is to not have people's tax dollars support businesses, but that is a different issue entirely.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Since when is this a new thing? This conversation seems to ignore the reality that people's rights are infringed upon ALL THE TIME.

    You don't have the right to take someone else's property. You don't have the right to slander or libel.

    "But you are hurting other people!"

    Fine then. You don't have the right to drive without a seat belt. You don't have the right to carry more than 1 ounce of liquid on a plane.

    This whole "but but but my rights" outrage strikes me as a bit shallow, especially when people are crying about losing the ability to selectively discriminate while using their religion as an excuse (but being raging hypocrites about the rest of it).
    Yes, they are infringed upon all the time, which highlights most people's hypocrisy. They want to take away other people's freedoms, but bitch and whine when others do it to them. People only seem to care about freedom, when it applies to things that they want... which means that they really don't give a shit about freedom at all.

  8. #1748
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    You never did answer the question, only went on a pointless rant
    i feel like you just posted this so you could torment us with machismo's yelling about freedoms being violated.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  9. #1749
    The Lightbringer Daws001's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    castle in the clouds
    Posts
    3,135
    Mississippi is one of the poorest, lowest scoring states in the nation (health, education, etc.) and yet they waste their time and money on this crap. Priority check on aisle 9 please?

    Baffling.

  10. #1750
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Daws001 View Post
    Mississippi is one of the poorest, lowest scoring states in the nation (health, education, etc.) and yet they waste their time and money on this crap. Priority check on aisle 9 please?

    Baffling.
    they have that rating for a reason. this is why.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  11. #1751
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    A black business owner would have to serve the KKK, and a gay business owner would have to serve the Westboro Baptist Church. I would never force someone to do that, would you?
    Yes i would. Because the reality is that unless they are being disruptive or disrespectful there is no legitimate reason to refuse service to them.

    If a gay couple walked into a store and started having sex on the counter then absolutely refuse service to them -- because their behavior is being disruptive. Or if a gay man walks into a store with a t-shirt that has a naked man on it, kick him out for wearing vulgar attire that would offend other customers.

    If a KKK member walked in wearing a hood then sure, refuse service. But if Bob from down the street, who just happened to be a member of the KKK, walks in the store, sell him the cake.

    The solution is to not have people's tax dollars support businesses, but that is a different issue entirely.
    It's nearly impossible to have them not to unless you propose to privatize all aspects of the public, including roads, fire, police, etc.

    Yes, they are infringed upon all the time, which highlights most people's hypocrisy. They want to take away other people's freedoms, but bitch and whine when others do it to them. People only seem to care about freedom, when it applies to things that they want... which means that they really don't give a shit about freedom at all.
    I care about consistency. The second someone explains to me why someone can use religious freedom to discriminate against gays when they don't care about serving anyone else I'll be all about it. The reason gay marriage should be made legal is for those same reasons of consistency. Marriage is a legal contract between two adults -- the distinguishment that it is a man and a woman was not legally consistent with contract law.

  12. #1752
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    My point is that the same people who want to force a business to serve people they do not wish to serve, are no different than those who chose to ban gay marriage. Both want to force their particular beliefs onto everyone else. No thanks.
    You are aware that it is a fallancy to assume that two groups of people are indentical because they happen to have used the same words once upon a time?

    And you accuse others of forcing their beliefs on other people. Are you for real?

  13. #1753
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    How is that any different than when states said that in order to get a marriage license, you had to marry someone of the opposite gender?

    Once again, it's nothing more than people trying to use the government to force their beliefs onto others.
    no it's called laws. if you choose to live in a society you have to abide by them or leave for a different society that will support your "freedoms" in reality you only have the freedoms that are assigned to you by the current conditions you are living in. so all your screaming about freedoms is just noise. society has decided that if you own a public business accessible to the public YOU MUST ALLOW ANY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN TO ENTER YOUR SHOP AND TAKE THE REASONABLE STEPS TO ENSURE THEY ACCESS IT. if you are unwilling to let just anyone in their is a very simple solution....don't make your store available to the general public.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  14. #1754
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Yes i would. Because the reality is that unless they are being disruptive or disrespectful there is no legitimate reason to refuse service to them.

    If a gay couple walked into a store and started having sex on the counter then absolutely refuse service to them -- because their behavior is being disruptive. Or if a gay man walks into a store with a t-shirt that has a naked man on it, kick him out for wearing vulgar attire that would offend other customers.

    If a KKK member walked in wearing a hood then sure, refuse service. But if Bob from down the street, who just happened to be a member of the KKK, walks in the store, sell him the cake.

    It's nearly impossible to have them not to unless you propose to privatize all aspects of the public, including roads, fire, police, etc.

    [SIZE=1][COLOR=#417394]I care about consistency. The second someone explains to me why someone can use religious freedom to discriminate against gays when they don't care about serving anyone else I'll be all about it. The reason gay marriage should be made legal is for those same reasons of consistency. Marriage is a legal contract between two adults -- the distinguishment that it is a man and a woman was not legally consistent with contract law.
    You claim to care about consistency, but you aren't actually applying it with your logic.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    You are aware that it is a fallancy to assume that two groups of people are indentical because they happen to have used the same words once upon a time?

    And you accuse others of forcing their beliefs on other people. Are you for real?
    What belief am I trying to force on anyone?

  15. #1755
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You claim to care about consistency, but you aren't actually applying it with your logic.
    Care to explain? I gave some pretty (I thought) clear examples of what I meant. You just claimed I'm being inconsistent but didn't show how.

  16. #1756
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    no it's called laws. if you choose to live in a society you have to abide by them or leave for a different society that will support your "freedoms" in reality you only have the freedoms that are assigned to you by the current conditions you are living in. so all your screaming about freedoms is just noise. society has decided that if you own a public business accessible to the public YOU MUST ALLOW ANY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN TO ENTER YOUR SHOP AND TAKE THE REASONABLE STEPS TO ENSURE THEY ACCESS IT. if you are unwilling to let just anyone in their is a very simple solution....don't make your store available to the general public.
    The people who banned gay marriage said the exact same things. They justified a law by citing the existence of it. They didn't give a shit about other people's freedoms, they only wanted to force their beliefs onto others. No thanks.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Yes i would. Because the reality is that unless they are being disruptive or disrespectful there is no legitimate reason to refuse service to them.

    If a gay couple walked into a store and started having sex on the counter then absolutely refuse service to them -- because their behavior is being disruptive. Or if a gay man walks into a store with a t-shirt that has a naked man on it, kick him out for wearing vulgar attire that would offend other customers.

    If a KKK member walked in wearing a hood then sure, refuse service. But if Bob from down the street, who just happened to be a member of the KKK, walks in the store, sell him the cake.

    It's nearly impossible to have them not to unless you propose to privatize all aspects of the public, including roads, fire, police, etc.

    [SIZE=1][COLOR=#417394]I care about consistency. The second someone explains to me why someone can use religious freedom to discriminate against gays when they don't care about serving anyone else I'll be all about it. The reason gay marriage should be made legal is for those same reasons of consistency. Marriage is a legal contract between two adults -- the distinguishment that it is a man and a woman was not legally consistent with contract law.
    A person cannot refuse service to a KKK member, unless they are wearing a hood (even though it is not against the law to wear one). That would be no different than sayign that someone cannot refuse to serve a gay person, unless that person had a shirt that said he was gay. You claim to not want people to discriminate, but then offer a justification for discrimination, all based on their personal beliefs.

  17. #1757
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    A person cannot refuse service to a KKK member, unless they are wearing a hood (even though it is not against the law to wear one). That would be no different than sayign that someone cannot refuse to serve a gay person, unless that person had a shirt that said he was gay. You claim to not want people to discriminate, but then offer a justification for discrimination, all based on their personal beliefs.
    I didn't say it was legal or not. I said whether or not it would be disruptive or not.

    Let me try to get away from the rather absurd examples we're trying to use here to go with something that is more general.

    Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service based on who someone is (gay, KKK member) but rather on what they are doing. If someone is engaging in disruptive behavior (wearing assless chaps or a KKK hood) then a business owner has the right to refuse service to avoid damage to his business.

    It's making something a personal issue, like intoxication or harassment, rather than a categorical refusal.

    Otherwise you are basically saying there was nothing wrong with Jim Crow laws and if businesses want to have a white lunch counter and a black lunch counter that's A-ok. Because it really sounds like it's the same sort of thing at the end of the day.

  18. #1758
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not a false equivalency, I made it quite clear how they are similar.

    Why should a privately-owned business be forced to serve everyone?
    Privately owned, publicly operated. We played the "business is allowed to discriminate" game already. Segregation era, and all that. It didn't go well, which is why we now have rules and protected classes. KKK, neo-Nazi, and bigot aren't protected classes, so comparing their being served (or not) to LGBT (or whatever letters we're using now) isn't very useful.

    To echo Lenonis's sentiment: This is Jim Crow: Rainbow edition. Nothing more.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

  19. #1759
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    I didn't say it was legal or not. I said whether or not it would be disruptive or not.

    Let me try to get away from the rather absurd examples we're trying to use here to go with something that is more general.

    Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service based on who someone is (gay, KKK member) but rather on what they are doing. If someone is engaging in disruptive behavior (wearing assless chaps or a KKK hood) then a business owner has the right to refuse service to avoid damage to his business.

    It's making something a personal issue, like intoxication or harassment, rather than a categorical refusal.

    Otherwise you are basically saying there was nothing wrong with Jim Crow laws and if businesses want to have a white lunch counter and a black lunch counter that's A-ok. Because it really sounds like it's the same sort of thing at the end of the day.
    But what has been deemed to be disruptive is an entirely subjective concept. Furthermore, some what has been deemed to be distruptive, has been forbidden by law. In the end, you have one group of people who feel they should be the arbiters on who/why people should be discriminated against.

    As for Jim Crow laws, that was government-mandated segregation, something I strongly oppose.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by RaoBurning View Post
    Privately owned, publicly operated. We played the "business is allowed to discriminate" game already. Segregation era, and all that. It didn't go well, which is why we now have rules and protected classes. KKK, neo-Nazi, and bigot aren't protected classes, so comparing their being served (or not) to LGBT (or whatever letters we're using now) isn't very useful.

    To echo Lenonis's sentiment: This is Jim Crow: Rainbow edition. Nothing more.
    The creation of protected classes is its own application of discrimination. By creating protected classes, you are discriminating against those whom you deem unworthy of being protected.

  20. #1760
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    But what has been deemed to be disruptive is an entirely subjective concept.
    To a point. That's generally why discrimination cases have to be proven in court.

    As for Jim Crow laws, that was government-mandated segregation, something I strongly oppose.
    So race segregation is great as long as it's something people choose to do rather than forced by the government?

    The creation of protected classes is its own application of discrimination. By creating protected classes, you are discriminating against those whom you deem unworthy of being protected.
    Bzzzzzzzzzt. Sexual orientation as a protected class includes straight people, just like race as a protected class includes caucasian.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •