Porn Site Bans North Carolina Users

[Deleted]

While this won't change much (people who need/want to watch porn will still do it), it's still kinda hilarious. Especially also regarding the statistics they released

[Anastacy]

So, you agree that a gay business owner should be forced to serve the WBC, and a black business owner should be forced to serve a hooded KKK member, and a Jewisgh business owner should be forced to serve neo-Nazis. Personally, I think that is a horrible thing to do to someone.

Just curious...

Why do you keep comparing gay people to 3 groups that incite hate and violence?

The more apt comparison is gay people vs. people who wear polyester, eat shellfish, have sex out of wedlock, etc. because religious store owners should be banning all of these people.

[satimy]

Clearly you're unfamiliar with the laws regarding that. Hell, the United States not only makes you jump through a thousand hoops to do it, but charges you out the ass with a tax for doing so. I think it's something ridiculous like 40% of your total net worth, though I'm sure I got that wrong.

You also literally have to ask permission to do it, and they'll only do it if you already have citizenship (or pending citizenship) in another country.

- - - Updated - - -


I love that states like Georgia and Alabama have "ebony" as their most searched for porn. And that Utah doesn't have ANYTHING, hahahaha. There's Mormons for you. XD

wtf is anita queen

[Vector Sigma]

wtf is anita queen

It's a sex act popular in Las Vegas. Obviously.

[GennGreymane]

wtf is anita queen

DO I want to google this?

[Felya]

Just curious...

Why do you keep comparing gay people to 3 groups that incite hate and violence?

The more apt comparison is gay people vs. people who wear polyester, eat shellfish, have sex out of wedlock, etc. because religious store owners should be banning all of these people.

To get an emotional response, instead of a logical one. Bans on attire and bringing outside food is permissible already. He either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge, because it contradicts his whole point, that banning a group of people is completely different than banning the action of said group covering everyone who shares their actions, regardless of affiliation. You already can ban gay people by simply banning public displays of affection. It has the same effect, where you only know who is gay based on their action, but without being the sort of inflammatory action that identifies KKK as being bad in their inflamitory action of identifying a group of people as inferior.

He doesn't seem to grasp the concept of banning the action that's the problem, which is permitted. Versus banning a group of people, who without said action cannot even be identified.

[Mormolyce]

I love that states like Georgia and Alabama have "ebony" as their most searched for porn. And that Utah doesn't have ANYTHING, hahahaha. There's Mormons for you. XD

Maybe they don't have an internet connection :P

wtf is anita queen

A randomly selected pornstar, as far as I can tell.

[kail]

They stated they would force those people to serve the KKK, bigots, and neo-Nazis. I personally think that is a horrible thing to do to someone.

And you wonder why I compared you to a first grader, when you use the same example consistently to try and prove your failing point. I lost count how many times you pointed to nazis and KKK when in the end, an organization is not a protected class. You advocate freedom, but have no realization that too much freedom can lead to society's degredation.

Laws try to keep up with ethics and the CRA is entierly within the right here. All fredoms have their limits, and the freedom to descriminate as a business is far more damaging that the reverse. Just get over it, descriminating a protected class is never right.

[satimy]

And you wonder why I compared you to a first grader, when you use the same example consistently to try and prove your failing point. I lost count how many times you pointed to nazis and KKK when in the end, an organization is not a protected class. You advocate freedom, but have no realization that too much freedom can lead to society's degredation.

Laws try to keep up with ethics and the CRA is entierly within the right here. All fredoms have their limits, and the freedom to descriminate as a business is far more damaging that the reverse. Just get over it, descriminating a protected class is never right.

Well thank you for being honest and admitting that you want to limit freedom, specifically freedom of things you personally disagree with.

[Machismo]

And you wonder why I compared you to a first grader, when you use the same example consistently to try and prove your failing point. I lost count how many times you pointed to nazis and KKK when in the end, an organization is not a protected class. You advocate freedom, but have no realization that too much freedom can lead to society's degredation.

Laws try to keep up with ethics and the CRA is entierly within the right here. All fredoms have their limits, and the freedom to descriminate as a business is far more damaging that the reverse. Just get over it, descriminating a protected class is never right.

Their fact that there are protected classes is proof that people feel discrimination is acceptable, and not applied in a consistent manner.Creating protected classes IS discrimination, that's the entire point.

- - - Updated - - -

You do know your reply can still be read and there is no answer there? I'll ask again, do you see a differance in a ban based on a generalization of a group of people and a ban on an action that covers why said group should be banned? Supporting a ban of a group that has no way of identifying versus the action, is completley not understand what makes those groups so bad. You can continue to use KKK in your example, to try and garner an emotional response and ignore that it's their action that's the problem, not affiliation. It only implies you have no clue why KKK or bigots are bad. I'll give you a clue, bigots in KKK are bad because they want to act upon their belief, not that they sign up to a group or wear a hood. Making a ban on KKK, simply antagonizing and not actually protecting someone from serving them.

Quote me applying a different standard to anyone. Your support of banning of groups, actually applies a different standard to KKK and those who act like KKK, but do not belong to that group.

Further proof you don't even bother to read what you responded to. I clearly stated that you are a hypocrite because you see letting a ban on ideology be pushing ideology, but a ban based on ideology as not pushing ideology. That is why you are a hypocrite...

As you can tell, I have no problem repeating my self. The more I do it, the clearer it should be how your opinion has no merit, even in your own rationalization.



I clearly stated that you are a hypocrite due to your view of pushing ideology, not over banning people. With the above reply, telling you that you support forcing Jews to encounter 'no Jews allowed', how are you not a horrible person by your own definition? You recognize that KKK being served by Jews is bad, but see no issue with Jews dealing with what makes KKK actually bad, by having a society where Jews would encounter the very thing that makes them bad. This is why banning the action, not only covers all who behave this way, regardless of your fixation on a group instead of the action that makes them bad, but everyone who would do something to harm the business. Without having signs that are the specific action that makes those groups bad.

You are wrong and to continue responding with crap that has nothing to do with what you are responding to, shows that you know you are wrong. I don't expect you to admit it, your ego seems too strong for that to ever happen. Your replies on the other hand, quite clearly shows your rational cannot keep up with your ego.

- - - Updated - - -



He supports KKK in forcing Jews to live in a society with 'no Jews allowed' signs. He doesn't even understand what is wrong with KKK. He only tosses it around for some emotional response and then defends the actual actions that make bigots a bad thing.

There's one thing you fail to notice, I'm not actually trying to force my ideology on anyone, it's my refusal to do so that you seem to have a problem with. You seem to think it is acceptable to discriminate against one group of people, but not another. I never once said the KKK, neo-Nazis, or WBC were doing anything illegal, or performing any action at all, they simply wanted service. Since they are not doing anything wrong at the time, they should be free to be served in your world. I would much rather have the freedom to not serve them in my business.

As for your last comment, it is complete garbage. I understand exactly what is wrong with the KKK, that's why I used them as an example. I would personally not want to serve someone like that, and would refuse service. I would love the freedom to be able to do so without reprisal. When you start forcing people to serve others against their will on their own property, you willingly put yourself on that slippery slope to forcing such a situation. The only way to stop it, is to apply laws in a hypocritical manner. Since I do not wish to be a hypocrite, I'm not willing to allow one person to refuse service, and not the other.

- - - Updated - - -

You support doctors not treating Jews, gays, blacks, etc. Thats pretty damn terrible.

I support everyone being able to chosoe whom they wish. Since you support that same Jew being forced to serve a neo-Nazi, I'll take my position of freedom over that of oppression.

- - - Updated - - -

Just curious...

Why do you keep comparing gay people to 3 groups that incite hate and violence?

The more apt comparison is gay people vs. people who wear polyester, eat shellfish, have sex out of wedlock, etc. because religious store owners should be banning all of these people.

Store owners should be able to serve whomever they want. I someone didn't want to serve someone, they should be free to refuse. I merely cited those three, because it highlights the hypocrisy in most people. They seem fine with preventing discrimination, until they decide they want to support discrimination against groups they do not like. They either become hypocrites, or they are willing to force a person to serve those groups.

- - - Updated - - -

To get an emotional response, instead of a logical one. Bans on attire and bringing outside food is permissible already. He either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge, because it contradicts his whole point, that banning a group of people is completely different than banning the action of said group covering everyone who shares their actions, regardless of affiliation. You already can ban gay people by simply banning public displays of affection. It has the same effect, where you only know who is gay based on their action, but without being the sort of inflammatory action that identifies KKK as being bad in their inflamitory action of identifying a group of people as inferior.

He doesn't seem to grasp the concept of banning the action that's the problem, which is permitted. Versus banning a group of people, who without said action cannot even be identified.

Simply being in the KKK is not an action, neither is being in the WBC or being a neo-Nazi. They are not performing any action at that time. SO, if you choose to let someone ban them, then you are being a hypoocrite. If you choose to force them to be served, then I consider you to be a horrible person for putting a business owner through that.

[Masark]

Creating protected classes IS discrimination, that's the entire point.

It would only seem that way if you're not smart enough to understand what a protected class IS.

[Anastacy]

Store owners should be able to serve whomever they want. I someone didn't want to serve someone, they should be free to refuse. I merely cited those three, because it highlights the hypocrisy in most people. They seem fine with preventing discrimination, until they decide they want to support discrimination against groups they do not like. They either become hypocrites, or they are willing to force a person to serve those groups.

Oh, well that's fine then. Christians are hypocritical beasts all the time.

I guess this would make things equal.

More seriously though...why do you make comparisons with groups that incite hate and violence, instead of groups that don't? Try answering the question.

[klogaroth]

DO I want to google this?

Here's her IMDB. Which whilst containing porn titles doesn't have any actual porn. There's no pictures though, I'll let you find those.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1560154/

Seems she was an extra in Hostel as well as doing porn.

[GennGreymane]

I support everyone being able to chosoe whom they wish. Since you support that same Jew being forced to serve a neo-Nazi, I'll take my position of freedom over that of oppression.

Are you just going to keep repeating your self now? You are simply dodging any thing that questions your logic and accuse people of oppressing others while you yourself are advocating oppression.

You can say you support freedom all you want, but clearly this is not true.

[Deleted]

They are showing nc what they are basically doing to lbgt.

[Felya]

There's one thing you fail to notice, I'm not actually trying to force my ideology on anyone, it's my refusal to do so that you seem to have a problem with. You seem to think it is acceptable to discriminate against one group of people, but not another. I never once said the KKK, neo-Nazis, or WBC were doing anything illegal, or performing any action at all, they simply wanted service. Since they are not doing anything wrong at the time, they should be free to be served in your world. I would much rather have the freedom to not serve them in my business.

Can you explain what this had to do with anything I said? I know you want to ban people who look like they belong to a group, instead of those who act like it. You don't have a freedom to not serve them, because you are not omniscient. That's why your logic is not actually banning anyone or giving people the freedom to ban anyone, it's actually the freedom to force your ideology on others. Making you... a hypocrite... Saying judge people by their action, not their looks, is not being a hypocrite. I'll help you out:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

As for your last comment, it is complete garbage. I understand exactly what is wrong with the KKK, that's why I used them as an example. I would personally not want to serve someone like that, and would refuse service. I would love the freedom to be able to do so without reprisal. When you start forcing people to serve others against their will on their own property, you willingly put yourself on that slippery slope to forcing such a situation. The only way to stop it, is to apply laws in a hypocritical manner. Since I do not wish to be a hypocrite, I'm not willing to allow one person to refuse service, and not the other.

That's your response to me saying you want to force Jews to live in a society of 'no Jews allowed' signs? I'm not facing any slippery slope, I have the mental capacity to understand that without super natural powers, the only thing that identifies a banned group, is the action of said group. Your idea wouldn't actually do anything, but have inflamitory signs to create needless conflict and turmoil. My basing it on action, instead of something you need superpowers to know, actually does what people like you claim to want... Without forcing people to live in a segregated society...

I support everyone being able to chosoe whom they wish. Since you support that same Jew being forced to serve a neo-Nazi, I'll take my position of freedom over that of oppression.

You support that neo-Nazi having 'no Jews allowed' sign in Jewish neighborhood. In your logic, he supports serving someone that looks like a Nazi, while you support that Nazi's very action that makes him a Nazi. Might want to get off that high horse amigo...

Store owners should be able to serve whomever they want. I someone didn't want to serve someone, they should be free to refuse. I merely cited those three, because it highlights the hypocrisy in most people. They seem fine with preventing discrimination, until they decide they want to support discrimination against groups they do not like. They either become hypocrites, or they are willing to force a person to serve those groups.

They already can deny service to anyone. What they cannot do, is explicitly deny service to a group of people. Our laws depend on judgment on action, instead of insulting disguised as policy. You simply refuse to acknowledge it and see no issue with banning those groups, having 0 impact on those who act like those groups, without affiliation.

Simply being in the KKK is not an action, neither is being in the WBC or being a neo-Nazi. They are not performing any action at that time. SO, if you choose to let someone ban them, then you are being a hypoocrite. If you choose to force them to be served, then I consider you to be a horrible person for putting a business owner through that.

You can't ban them without them taking action to identify them selfs. That would require magical powers... It makes me a realist... You wanting to permit 'no Jews allowed' signs for the KKK to force on society, while still not having a way to prevent KKK being served, regardless if they are banned or not... Is pretty fucked up... How you call others horrible, is just mind boggling...

[Machismo]

Oh, well that's fine then. Christians are hypocritical beasts all the time.

I guess this would make things equal.

More seriously though...why do you make comparisons with groups that incite hate and violence, instead of groups that don't? Try answering the question.

Yes, almost all Christians are hypocritical a great deal of the time. Their selective interpretation of the Bible is a glaring example.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you just going to keep repeating your self now? You are simply dodging any thing that questions your logic and accuse people of oppressing others while you yourself are advocating oppression.

You can say you support freedom all you want, but clearly this is not true.

I'm not dodging anything, I just want to hammer home the hypocrisy in people who feel they should be able to force their morals onto others, but whine when others try to do the same to them.

[GennGreymane]

I'm not dodging anything, I just want to hammer home the hypocrisy in people who feel they should be able to force their morals onto others, but whine when others try to do the same to them.

You are dodging plenty. You dodged my hospital example, you dodged my contract example, you dodge my questions. The only hypocrisy you are pointing out is your own. You support that no one should be forcing beliefs on others, while supporting the right to do so. You are hammering in nothing, you have no substance, you have no logic, since you dodge everything, you cannot even support your own logic. You cant hammer anything if you have nothing to hammer with.

Is it oppression that we have laws against murder?
Is it oppression that we have laws against rape?
Is it oppression that we have laws against theft

Are those not society imposing the belief that these are wrong?

[RyanEX]

Strange days when Porn sites ban States. I thought it was the other way around.

[Machismo]

Can you explain what this had to do with anything I said? I know you want to ban people who look like they belong to a group, instead of those who act like it. You don't have a freedom to not serve them, because you are not omniscient. That's why your logic is not actually banning anyone or giving people the freedom to ban anyone, it's actually the freedom to force your ideology on others. Making you... a hypocrite... Saying judge people by their action, not their looks, is not being a hypocrite. I'll help you out:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite



That's your response to me saying you want to force Jews to live in a society of 'no Jews allowed' signs? I'm not facing any slippery slope, I have the mental capacity to understand that without super natural powers, the only thing that identifies a banned group, is the action of said group. Your idea wouldn't actually do anything, but have inflamitory signs to create needless conflict and turmoil. My basing it on action, instead of something you need superpowers to know, actually does what people like you claim to want... Without forcing people to live in a segregated society...



You support that neo-Nazi having 'no Jews allowed' sign in Jewish neighborhood. In your logic, he supports serving someone that looks like a Nazi, while you support that Nazi's very action that makes him a Nazi. Might want to get off that high horse amigo...



They already can deny service to anyone. What they cannot do, is explicitly deny service to a group of people. Our laws depend on judgment on action, instead of insulting disguised as policy. You simply refuse to acknowledge it and see no issue with banning those groups, having 0 impact on those who act like those groups, without affiliation.



You can't ban them without them taking action to identify them selfs. That would require magical powers... It makes me a realist... You wanting to permit 'no Jews allowed' signs for the KKK to force on society, while still not having a way to prevent KKK being served, regardless if they are banned or not... Is pretty fucked up... How you call others horrible, is just mind boggling...

You want to restrict some people's freedoms, but not others. That's the problem I have. You want to use your moral beliefs to justifyu forcing others to do what you want them to do. You are calling me a hypocrite for.... not trying to force things onto people... that makes no fucking sense at all. If you can show WHERE I support forcing my beliefs onto people, feel free to let me know.

Once again, I don't want to force anything. That's the part you cannot seem to grasp. I am not supporting government legislation to force people to conform to my beliefs, am I? No, that's what you are doing.

Store owners cannot deny service to anyone, that's the point. You made that clear with your very next sentence. You say it is acceptable to judge someone based on action, but simply being a neo-Nazi is no more an action than being a Christian. One is acceptable to discriminate against, the other is not. Your logic is inconsistent.

If you are saying that they must take an action to identify themselves, then you have just justified the actions of a baker who said they would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. They have apparently identified themselves, just as a KKK member would do by wearing a hood. If we are going to follow your logic of "actions" then both instances should be free to refuse service.

- - - Updated - - -

You are dodging plenty. You dodged my hospital example, you dodged my contract example, you dodge my questions. The only hypocrisy you are pointing out is your own. You support that no one should be forcing beliefs on others, while supporting the right to do so. You are hammering in nothing, you have no substance, you have no logic, since you dodge everything, you cannot even support your own logic. You cant hammer anything if you have nothing to hammer with.

Is it oppression that we have laws against murder?
Is it oppression that we have laws against rape?
Is it oppression that we have laws against theft

Are those not society imposing the belief that these are wrong?

We talked about your contract example for more than an hour. You just didn't like what had to be said.

Your logic is inconsistent,m because you want to justify one form of discrimination, then whine about another. You tried to base it off an "unlimited" service, but that blew up in your face. By going down that road, you justified any website to choose to discriminate against anyone they want to. Of course, when I brought that up, you just started whining, and tried to change the subject and move the goalposts. SO, it really boils down to why you think someone should be allowed to discirminate. Other people cited actions versus being, but that would also point out the hypocrisy in not applying such a mentality evenly.

IN the end, you supprt discrimination when you find the "victim" morally reprehensible, and want to whine when it coems to the "victim" being somethign you support. Does that pretty much cover it?

Now, all those things you mention cause a clear case of harm. If your argument that refusal of service causes harm, then one should not be allowed to discriminate at all. THat would mean the gay business owner would be obligated to serve the WBC, because refusing to serve them would cause harm. Is that correct?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you explain what this had to do with anything I said? I know you want to ban people who look like they belong to a group, instead of those who act like it. You don't have a freedom to not serve them, because you are not omniscient. That's why your logic is not actually banning anyone or giving people the freedom to ban anyone, it's actually the freedom to force your ideology on others. Making you... a hypocrite... Saying judge people by their action, not their looks, is not being a hypocrite. I'll help you out:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite



That's your response to me saying you want to force Jews to live in a society of 'no Jews allowed' signs? I'm not facing any slippery slope, I have the mental capacity to understand that without super natural powers, the only thing that identifies a banned group, is the action of said group. Your idea wouldn't actually do anything, but have inflamitory signs to create needless conflict and turmoil. My basing it on action, instead of something you need superpowers to know, actually does what people like you claim to want... Without forcing people to live in a segregated society...



You support that neo-Nazi having 'no Jews allowed' sign in Jewish neighborhood. In your logic, he supports serving someone that looks like a Nazi, while you support that Nazi's very action that makes him a Nazi. Might want to get off that high horse amigo...



They already can deny service to anyone. What they cannot do, is explicitly deny service to a group of people. Our laws depend on judgment on action, instead of insulting disguised as policy. You simply refuse to acknowledge it and see no issue with banning those groups, having 0 impact on those who act like those groups, without affiliation.



You can't ban them without them taking action to identify them selfs. That would require magical powers... It makes me a realist... You wanting to permit 'no Jews allowed' signs for the KKK to force on society, while still not having a way to prevent KKK being served, regardless if they are banned or not... Is pretty fucked up... How you call others horrible, is just mind boggling...

How would a "No Jews Allowed" sign actually prevent Jews from being served? Is there a way to identify someone as Jewish without them identifying themselves?

Boy, that just backfired on you.

In reality, a "No Jews Allowed" sign is no different than a "No KKK Allowed" sign.