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

[Machismo]

Holy shit! Did you honestly respond to a question about stopping people from murdering gay people, by calling that approach authoritarian and Hitler?

You are easily the dumbest person in this entire forum, by an extensive margin.

I think you may want to actually read things again. I compared one form of authoritarianism to another. Hitler was an authoritarian, and was able to do all the shitty things he did BECAUSE of the government. He forced his beleifs onto others (at the expense of their freedoms), just as most people on here are trying to do.

[Machismo]

But...but he just wants everyone to be equal, and do that you must be able to kick gays out of your store at anytime.

You are being disingenuous. I think people should be able to choose whom they wish to serve on their own property. Freedom wins. I would no sooner force a homophobic bigot to serve a gay person, than I would force a gay person to serve that homophobic bigot.

- - - Updated - - -

Compares people to Hitler because they are against discrimination...........................mind blown

Compares authoritarianism to authoritarianism... keep up.

[Machismo]

I guess if you repeat this BS enough you might believe it. Thankfully, most people don't think like this.

Most people are authoritarians and hypocrites. I'm sure you would be fine with it, those types of people have no problem justifying their actions.

[Machismo]

Why would anyone have to justify not discriminating?

Justify forcing your beliefs onto others...

[Felya]

What law have I supported?

I will repeat again, your idea that anarchy is 'mathematicly' impossible, means you support laws. Just because you refuse to state what laws you actually support, does not negate the fact that you claimed that anarchy is impossible.mif anarchy is impossible, then that means you support law. In fact, you saying that you don't support the law in the OP, while defending it for quite a while, means you have been supporting a law in this thread. Otherwise, you wouldn't have an issue with every single person who does not support this law.

It's the same as your description of KKK being 'dumbasses', then you don't know because you 'don't associate with hate groups', then actually defining them as a hate group. Your rational has been nothing, but strawmans, which then you act confused when pointing that your strawman is the antithesis of your point. It's pretty ludicrous...

- - - Updated - - -

Justify forcing your beliefs onto others...

Having a sign that tells a group of people to not enter due to their sexual orientation, is forcing your beliefs on others. Gay people do not have a shared belief system to force on anyone. Unlike the KKK, Hitler or any other absurdity you have tried to justify your opinion, there is no belief system that gay people can force on anyone, while gay people not being worthy of doing business is forcing a belief system on anyone who sees your requirements.

- - - Updated - - -

Most people are authoritarians and hypocrites. I'm sure you would be fine with it, those types of people have no problem justifying their actions.

You mean like you? Your narcissism does not change the fact that you are most likely the same as most people. Your self evaluation of your uniques, is nothing more than what an idiot believes, while not having the capacity to understand they are an idiot. You are not a special snow flake...

[satimy]

Why would anyone have to justify not discriminating?

I will repeat again, your idea that anarchy is 'mathematicly' impossible, means you support laws. Just because you refuse to state what laws you actually support, does not negate the fact that you claimed that anarchy is impossible.mif anarchy is impossible, then that means you support law. In fact, you saying that you don't support the law in the OP, while defending it for quite a while, means you have been supporting a law in this thread. Otherwise, you wouldn't have an issue with every single person who does not support this law.

It's the same as your description of KKK being 'dumbasses', then you don't know because you 'don't associate with hate groups', then actually defining them as a hate group. Your rational has been nothing, but strawmans, which then you act confused when pointing that your strawman is the antithesis of your point. It's pretty ludicrous...

- - - Updated - - -



Having a sign that tells a group of people to not enter due to their sexual orientation, is forcing your beliefs on others. Gay people do not have a shared belief system to force on anyone. Unlike the KKK, Hitler or any other absurdity you have tried to justify your opinion, there is no belief system that gay people can force on anyone, while gay people not being worthy of doing business is forcing a belief system on anyone who sees your requirements.

- - - Updated - - -



You mean like you? Your narcissism does not change the fact that you are most likely the same as most people. Your self evaluation of your uniques, is nothing more than what an idiot believes, while not having the capacity to understand they are an idiot. You are not a special snow flake...

Stop locking your doors of you don't believe in freedom of association. Join the side of liberty and support property rights even at the expense of a few racist retards not baking a cake for someone. Are you really willing to piss away Liberty because of a few asshats.

[Breccia]

Alright, I think it's time to bring this to a close.

EXHIBIT A

You responded to this

You don't think using a guy who wanted to kill off gay people, being an example of why laws permitting treating gays differently are a good thing... Is at all funny?

with this

An authoritarian is an authoritian. You are the one who demands fealthy to the government, which is exactly how Hitler was allowed to do all those horrible things.

and you responded to this

no i am upholding law and order and punishing those who don't follow it. it is what is the rightful purpose of the law enforcement branch of government. to make sure it's citizens are following the law. without laws society would descend into chaos.

with this.

That is authoritarianism.

You have compared someone who wants to prohibit the murder of gay people with Hitler, because "An authoritarian is an authoritian", and have called the upholding of law and order authoritarian. And before you accuse me of not reading what you said:

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?

Fascism is a type of authoritarianism. Authoritariansm is nothing more than favoring of government power that restricts personal freedom.

I support the fact that no low is actually necessary. See, I'm not forcing my beliefs onto others.

These are pretty troubling in and of themselves, but it's not the current issue.

EXHIBIT B

You then responded to this

That's sort of the end of the argument. You are against rules period. No country, no law enforcement, no rules to obstruct your freedom. We had that maybe 8000 years ago ? It's not how modern society works however.

with this

I never said I was against all rules, period. I'm merely against an unnecessary restriction in overall freedoms. Modern society does not work that way, because people have an inherent desire to force their beliefs onto others. I'm not a big fan of such things, if you hadn't noticed.

You also said this:

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).

We'll be circling around to the bolded part in just a bit, don't you worry.

Now, let's compare Exhibits A and B

In A, you are making a very strong argument that anyone going with law and order is an authoritarian, comparable to Hitler. In your own words. Even when they are specifically talking about preventing murder of gay people.

In B, you claim not to be an anarchist, because being an anarchist is mathematically impossible.

So, any amount of law, even preventing murder, makes you authoritarian, but it's impossible to be an anarchist because there are too many outliers.

This comparison leads to only a very small number of options for you, at this point.

OPTION 1
You admit there are, in fact, shades of grey, and that it's possible to have some laws without being authoritarian, while being "mathematically" possible to be an anarchist. This is the most reasonable option and I'm sure you'll disregard it purely for that reason alone.

OPTION 2
In the effort to treat authoritarianism and anarchism by the same rules, you admit that pure authoritarianism is also mathematically impossible, which completely destroys your entire argument.

OPTION 3
In the effort to treat authoritarianism and anarchism by the same rules, you admit that being against any law makes you an anarchist. This also destroys your entire argument. Incidentally, this is the most viable option for you to save face, since you tried to say "no law is necessary". You used "low" instead of "law" which was hilarious, but I speak fluent typo.

OPTION 4
You admit you are treating authoritarianism and anarchism by separate rules, and by immediate result, the rules that you apply to other people don't apply to you.

Which makes you a hypocrite.

Think it over. Take your time. None of these options are good, but you got yourself into this, much like a public business owner who finds they have to follow state and federal laws about discrimination. You were not forced into this.

[satimy]

I wish I could give you the gold medal here for mental gymnastics but someone already won that, you can have silver though!

Is it from the fascism Olympics, I'll pass

[breadisfunny]

Apparently you can't read, would you like some links for some education programs ? It's never to late to become literate

for someone who admitted to not going to grade school you sure sound smart.

[Machismo]

I will repeat again, your idea that anarchy is 'mathematicly' impossible, means you support laws. Just because you refuse to state what laws you actually support, does not negate the fact that you claimed that anarchy is impossible.mif anarchy is impossible, then that means you support law. In fact, you saying that you don't support the law in the OP, while defending it for quite a while, means you have been supporting a law in this thread. Otherwise, you wouldn't have an issue with every single person who does not support this law.

It's the same as your description of KKK being 'dumbasses', then you don't know because you 'don't associate with hate groups', then actually defining them as a hate group. Your rational has been nothing, but strawmans, which then you act confused when pointing that your strawman is the antithesis of your point. It's pretty ludicrous...

- - - Updated - - -



Having a sign that tells a group of people to not enter due to their sexual orientation, is forcing your beliefs on others. Gay people do not have a shared belief system to force on anyone. Unlike the KKK, Hitler or any other absurdity you have tried to justify your opinion, there is no belief system that gay people can force on anyone, while gay people not being worthy of doing business is forcing a belief system on anyone who sees your requirements.

- - - Updated - - -



You mean like you? Your narcissism does not change the fact that you are most likely the same as most people. Your self evaluation of your uniques, is nothing more than what an idiot believes, while not having the capacity to understand they are an idiot. You are not a special snow flake...

You can't find an example of me supporting that law, can you? Find one single fucking example, I dare you.

Find me an example of my authoritarianism or hypocrisy. I dare you.

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, I think it's time to bring this to a close.

EXHIBIT A

You responded to this



with this



and you responded to this



with this.



You have compared someone who wants to prohibit the murder of gay people with Hitler, because "An authoritarian is an authoritian", and have called the upholding of law and order authoritarian. And before you accuse me of not reading what you said:







These are pretty troubling in and of themselves, but it's not the current issue.

EXHIBIT B

You then responded to this



with this



You also said this:



We'll be circling around to the bolded part in just a bit, don't you worry.

Now, let's compare Exhibits A and B

In A, you are making a very strong argument that anyone going with law and order is an authoritarian, comparable to Hitler. In your own words. Even when they are specifically talking about preventing murder of gay people.

In B, you claim not to be an anarchist, because being an anarchist is mathematically impossible.

So, any amount of law, even preventing murder, makes you authoritarian, but it's impossible to be an anarchist because there are too many outliers.

This comparison leads to only a very small number of options for you, at this point.

OPTION 1
You admit there are, in fact, shades of grey, and that it's possible to have some laws without being authoritarian, while being "mathematically" possible to be an anarchist. This is the most reasonable option and I'm sure you'll disregard it purely for that reason alone.

OPTION 2
In the effort to treat authoritarianism and anarchism by the same rules, you admit that pure authoritarianism is also mathematically impossible, which completely destroys your entire argument.

OPTION 3
In the effort to treat authoritarianism and anarchism by the same rules, you admit that being against any law makes you an anarchist. This also destroys your entire argument. Incidentally, this is the most viable option for you to save face, since you tried to say "no law is necessary". You used "low" instead of "law" which was hilarious, but I speak fluent typo.

OPTION 4
You admit you are treating authoritarianism and anarchism by separate rules, and by immediate result, the rules that you apply to other people don't apply to you.

Which makes you a hypocrite.

Think it over. Take your time. None of these options are good, but you got yourself into this, much like a public business owner who finds they have to follow state and federal laws about discrimination. You were not forced into this.

I compared one authoritarian to another. You are the one misinterpreting what I said.

I think you need to read the definitions of some words. They do not mean what you think they mean.

Since I support the highest amount of possible freedom, the only path from there is either anarchy or an increased in authoritarianism. Feel free to try and call me an authoritarian, but it would only mean you are admitting to being an even more extreme case of one. As for the hypocrisy, you've got nothing. I've always stated I base it on the maximum possible freedom. If you can find any inconsistency in that, then please enlighten me.

[wheresmywoft]

-SNIP-

I feel sorry that you've probably spent half an hour composing that and he'll probably just glance over it in 10 seconds and give the same answer he always does.

[Tennis]

Thinking it's a "lifestyle choice" in the first place demonstrates that you don't have any understanding of what sexual orientation is.

If you have a "choice" to make, it's because you're sexually attracted to both genders. "Choosing" one or the other to have relationships with doesn't mean you're not bisexual, it just means you're only acting on certain attractions and desires. For anyone who's purely homosexual or heterosexual, there is no "choice".

The whole "lifestyle choice" thing just seems like closeted bisexuals or repressed gay people who are projecting on the rest of the population their own internalized hatred of themselves. I can't see a heterosexual dude claiming a gay man "chose" to be gay. I certainly didn't "choose" to be straight. And I couldn't "choose" to be gay if I wanted to. Which I'm not against; my divorce was pretty miserable, and if I could've swapped teams, that probably would've done it for me.



You just contradicted yourself. You can't "not like homosexuality" and claim you don't have anything against gay people. Whether someone's gay matters as much to me as whether they're left-handed, or have blue eyes. It's not my personal thing for my own personal relationships, but that's where my opinion stops.

So it's not a lifestyle choice? They are many gays who are in relationships with those of the opposite gender and make it work. I've seen it myself. Is this not a lifestyle choice?

[Hablion]

That is forcing a belief. That's no different than when the homophobic bigots said, "If you want to get married, then you must get married to someone of the opposite gender."

It is at that point that they can make it a membership only private business.

[satimy]

for someone who admitted to not going to grade school you sure sound smart.

Again it's kind of sad that you are proudly displaying your illiteracy. I'm sure we can crowdfund some tutoring or something

[Machismo]

It is at that point that they can make it a membership only private business.

I see no reason why that should even be required.

[Hablion]

There are laws in many states that prevent discrimination based on Ethnicity, Sexuality, and Religious views for those who are open to the public consumer outlets. If they are a Private Business (locked behind a membership) they can refuse people Membership. These laws are to protect consumer rights against discrimination.

Another thing that can happen is say you are gay and want to apply for a driver's license in states like these is that it would would allow even the state to refuse you a service that is pretty much mandatory in to days world. It could even allow a Polling place which maybe the only place a person like this could vote in to bar them from enforcing their constitutional right to vote.

What they will have to legally do in states that pass laws to discriminate they will have to ask every single customer that enters their place if they are x, x, or x much like how you have to be carded for certain things regardless if you are a 17 year old man or a 80 year old Woman.

[Elegiac]

So it's not a lifestyle choice? They are many gays who are in relationships with those of the opposite gender and make it work. I've seen it myself. Is this not a lifestyle choice?

No, that's called bisexuality.

[Kujako]

No, that's called bisexuality.

Or suppressing one's true nature to try to conform to what others want you to be.

[Breccia]

I feel sorry that you've probably spent half an hour composing that and he'll probably just glance over it in 10 seconds and give the same answer he always does.

Eh, he struggles with words like "enforce" and "law" so it probably wouldn't matter if he had. I am kind of curious how he'll try to weasel his way out of it.

- - - Updated - - -

I compared one authoritarian to another. You are the one misinterpreting what I said.

Those are your own words, in their own context. The only interpretation is yours. Now, perhaps this is you trying to admit that there are, in fact, degrees of authoritarianism, but based on everything else you've said, you're not willing to admit that yet.

I think you need to read the definitions of some words. They do not mean what you think they mean.

Even if that was true, it's not relevant. I'm using your own versions of your own words. Even by those definitions, you're still at odds with yourself.

Since I support the highest amount of possible freedom, the only path from there is either anarchy or an increased in authoritarianism. Feel free to try and call me an authoritarian, but it would only mean you are admitting to being an even more extreme case of one. As for the hypocrisy, you've got nothing. I've always stated I base it on the maximum possible freedom. If you can find any inconsistency in that, then please enlighten me.

Hypocrite is Option Four. You're free to select that, but it sounds like you're leaning towards Option Three, i.e. you are an anarchist. Incidentally, this destroys the rest of your argument, since your opposition is to all laws, and therefore, useless in this context.

[Noradin]

Now we're talking about imaginary, de facto laws? Are you fucking serious?

I support freedom, it's really that simple.

I don't think you understand the difference between a law, and freedom.

The only "freedom" you support is the freedom to bully others and take their freedoms.