Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Conservative hypocrisy.

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 7:20:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:11:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

reported for spam.

It is not spam to post a video for debate. I am now reporting you for making a false report. Leave me alone, troll.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 7:23:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.
I disagree. Conservatives think they have the right to discriminate. Prove me wrong.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 10:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 7:23:56 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.
I disagree. Conservatives think they have the right to discriminate. Prove me wrong.

Well I don't see a need for the government to prevent them to discriminate--so yes, they do. They will lose in the long run because people--including me--do not like the behavior, so they will lose business. And they will eventually turn around without government regulation. These laws really have no downside because there will be a full reversal over time. It is how the market works. This behavior will not last long whether or not these laws exist. Plus, if someone had a religious organization I see no reason to oppose some discrimination. Nonconfirmed people cannot intake Eucharist at the Catholic church--it is seen as okay--why? Religious freedom. If a catholic charity doesn't want to give a homosexual a service that is immoral but shouldn't be banned. Just because something is legal (e.g. gay marriage) does not mean it is required.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 10:17:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 10:08:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:23:56 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.
I disagree. Conservatives think they have the right to discriminate. Prove me wrong.

Well I don't see a need for the government to prevent them to discriminate--so yes, they do. They will lose in the long run because people--including me--do not like the behavior, so they will lose business. And they will eventually turn around without government regulation. These laws really have no downside because there will be a full reversal over time. It is how the market works. This behavior will not last long whether or not these laws exist. Plus, if someone had a religious organization I see no reason to oppose some discrimination. Nonconfirmed people cannot intake Eucharist at the Catholic church--it is seen as okay--why? Religious freedom. If a catholic charity doesn't want to give a homosexual a service that is immoral but shouldn't be banned. Just because something is legal (e.g. gay marriage) does not mean it is required.
It is wrong to discriminate. Discrimination is not a right.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 8:52:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 10:17:56 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/3/2015 10:08:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:23:56 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.
I disagree. Conservatives think they have the right to discriminate. Prove me wrong.

Well I don't see a need for the government to prevent them to discriminate--so yes, they do. They will lose in the long run because people--including me--do not like the behavior, so they will lose business. And they will eventually turn around without government regulation. These laws really have no downside because there will be a full reversal over time. It is how the market works. This behavior will not last long whether or not these laws exist. Plus, if someone had a religious organization I see no reason to oppose some discrimination. Nonconfirmed people cannot intake Eucharist at the Catholic church--it is seen as okay--why? Religious freedom. If a catholic charity doesn't want to give a homosexual a service that is immoral but shouldn't be banned. Just because something is legal (e.g. gay marriage) does not mean it is required.
It is wrong to discriminate. Discrimination is not a right.

Discrimination is actually a right, and furthermore it is unavoidable.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 9:19:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

...And you call yourself a Libertarian?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 9:19:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 8:52:28 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/3/2015 10:17:56 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/3/2015 10:08:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:23:56 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.
I disagree. Conservatives think they have the right to discriminate. Prove me wrong.

Well I don't see a need for the government to prevent them to discriminate--so yes, they do. They will lose in the long run because people--including me--do not like the behavior, so they will lose business. And they will eventually turn around without government regulation. These laws really have no downside because there will be a full reversal over time. It is how the market works. This behavior will not last long whether or not these laws exist. Plus, if someone had a religious organization I see no reason to oppose some discrimination. Nonconfirmed people cannot intake Eucharist at the Catholic church--it is seen as okay--why? Religious freedom. If a catholic charity doesn't want to give a homosexual a service that is immoral but shouldn't be banned. Just because something is legal (e.g. gay marriage) does not mean it is required.
It is wrong to discriminate. Discrimination is not a right.

Discrimination is actually a right, and furthermore it is unavoidable.

Agreed, people discriminate all the time.

Universities discriminate on age
Some hairdressers discriminate on gender
I discriminate on who I want to spend time with

And the list goes on. We cannot live our lives without discriminating in some shape or form
ConceptEagle
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 9:45:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.

Then how come the kid who is being a little "b!tch" in class gets time out by the teacher? Is the teacher suppressing his freedom?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:21:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Oh, and by the way, I don't like the fact that you made me watch a two minute video where a man is swearing and slinging insults at me for my view, while on his high horse, being himself hypocritical, when you could have posted the link and said "Conservatives pass the Indiana bill but don't like the free market fallout".

I find this laziness an assault, given the content of the video, and I am now upset at his words. I will likely not open another youtube link until you have the decency to give your thought on it besides a promotion of said video.

Oh, and for someone as obsessed with labels as you are, you should know that:
GOP =/= conservatism =/= libertarians

Further, care to explain how there is hypocrisy simply because they are complaining about the consequence of the bill? Can they not be upset that people are acting the way they are?
I guess I am a hypocrite because I think people should be able to drink alcohol but hate drunken idiots, huh?
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:22:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 9:45:14 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.

Then how come the kid who is being a little "b!tch" in class gets time out by the teacher? Is the teacher suppressing his freedom?

Sure, if the teacher invaded his home after school and ordered him to sit down at gunpoint.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:27:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Religious freedom is protected by the Second Amendment. Homosexual/transsexual rights are not. If I were you, I would read the Constitution and protect each person's rights to religious freedom.
ConceptEagle
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:31:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:27:23 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Religious freedom is protected by the Second Amendment. Homosexual/transsexual rights are not. If I were you, I would read the Constitution and protect each person's rights to religious freedom.

If I were you, I would pay attention in school.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:32:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:31:54 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:27:23 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Religious freedom is protected by the Second Amendment. Homosexual/transsexual rights are not. If I were you, I would read the Constitution and protect each person's rights to religious freedom.

If I were you, I would pay attention in school.

Is that an ad hominem?
ConceptEagle
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:37:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:32:22 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:31:54 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:27:23 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Religious freedom is protected by the Second Amendment. Homosexual/transsexual rights are not. If I were you, I would read the Constitution and protect each person's rights to religious freedom.

If I were you, I would pay attention in school.

Is that an ad hominem?

1. It is the First Amendment

2. The Founding Fathers were Christians but secularists. So homosexual rights are to be protected. Homosexuals are born that way, just like how people of different skin color are born that way, and we do not discriminate those people anymore, so we should stop that with homosexuals.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:43:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:37:33 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:

2. The Founding Fathers were Christians but secularists. So homosexual rights are to be protected. Homosexuals are born that way, just like how people of different skin color are born that way, and we do not discriminate those people anymore, so we should stop that with homosexuals.

Can you really say this with a straight face?
At the time of the founding fathers, slavery was legal, and blacks were not citizens. Can you really state that the founding fathers believed that gays should be protected?
Also, you are aware there is a difference between being protected from the government and from another citizen, right?
The issue at hand, for 97% of these issues, is if the individual can discriminate, not the government, and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would say there should not be a law against it.
Tell me, can a business owner sue an ex-employee who tells the business' clients he is gay, and he loses business? No one is forced to shop there, and if the clients are all homophobes, they bail, and the business is closed down, due to discrimination. Should this be prevented? If not, then why the other way around?
My work here is, finally, done.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:50:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:37:33 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:32:22 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:31:54 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:27:23 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Religious freedom is protected by the Second Amendment. Homosexual/transsexual rights are not. If I were you, I would read the Constitution and protect each person's rights to religious freedom.

If I were you, I would pay attention in school.

Is that an ad hominem?

1. It is the First Amendment

What is? Point it out to me.

2. The Founding Fathers were Christians but secularists. So homosexual rights are to be protected. Homosexuals are born that way, just like how people of different skin color are born that way, and we do not discriminate those people anymore, so we should stop that with homosexuals.

If the rights of free speech and religious freedom are not absolute, what makes the nondiscrimination right absolute? If a gay couple is denied service, they can go elsewhere, but if a Christian baker is denied choice, they are forced to compromise their beliefs.
ConceptEagle
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:58:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:50:55 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:37:33 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:32:22 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:31:54 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:27:23 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Religious freedom is protected by the Second Amendment. Homosexual/transsexual rights are not. If I were you, I would read the Constitution and protect each person's rights to religious freedom.

If I were you, I would pay attention in school.

Is that an ad hominem?

1. It is the First Amendment

What is? Point it out to me.

2. The Founding Fathers were Christians but secularists. So homosexual rights are to be protected. Homosexuals are born that way, just like how people of different skin color are born that way, and we do not discriminate those people anymore, so we should stop that with homosexuals.

If the rights of free speech and religious freedom are not absolute, what makes the nondiscrimination right absolute? If a gay couple is denied service, they can go elsewhere, but if a Christian baker is denied choice, they are forced to compromise their beliefs.

I was saying that the First Amendments protects religious freedom not the Second Amendment.
Also, the rights of free speech and religious freedom are absolute, or would you like to clarify what exactly you mean by "absolute"?

A gay couple being denied service is getting enforced by a group of believers who want to dictate contemporary life from a book written several centuries ago. The Christian baker is not getting his or her right to choice taken away; he or she is being a bigot.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 12:05:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:58:49 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:50:55 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:37:33 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:32:22 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:31:54 AM, ConceptEagle wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:27:23 AM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Religious freedom is protected by the Second Amendment. Homosexual/transsexual rights are not. If I were you, I would read the Constitution and protect each person's rights to religious freedom.

If I were you, I would pay attention in school.

Is that an ad hominem?

1. It is the First Amendment

What is? Point it out to me.

2. The Founding Fathers were Christians but secularists. So homosexual rights are to be protected. Homosexuals are born that way, just like how people of different skin color are born that way, and we do not discriminate those people anymore, so we should stop that with homosexuals.

If the rights of free speech and religious freedom are not absolute, what makes the nondiscrimination right absolute? If a gay couple is denied service, they can go elsewhere, but if a Christian baker is denied choice, they are forced to compromise their beliefs.

I was saying that the First Amendments protects religious freedom not the Second Amendment.

Oh right, my bad.

Also, the rights of free speech and religious freedom are absolute, or would you like to clarify what exactly you mean by "absolute"?

Full freedom. However, there should be a balance between rights.

A gay couple being denied service is getting enforced by a group of believers who want to dictate contemporary life from a book written several centuries ago. The Christian baker is not getting his or her right to choice taken away; he or she is being a bigot.

Actually their right to choice is being taken away. Their consequence for them discriminating against homosexuals is public backlash, which will result in less business, but that does not mean their decisions should be banned and they should be forced to perform business for whoever comes in. Besides, the gay couple can go elsewhere, not force the baker to receive money from them to bake them a cake
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:20:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 10:08:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:23:56 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:10:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/3/2015 6:11:24 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

You know the bill doesn't even have the word "gay" in it, right? Those laws have not--until now--not been used to defend discrimination. And it will be. But if it can be proven that there is an actual religious issue here, it is legal. tbh I don't know why this is an issue. It hurts business--no reason to regulate it. Let self regulation work. The state should *not* support it, but it is the right of a business person to be a little b!tch. And who cares. Liberals have no concept of freedom.
I disagree. Conservatives think they have the right to discriminate. Prove me wrong.

Well I don't see a need for the government to prevent them to discriminate--so yes, they do. They will lose in the long run because people--including me--do not like the behavior, so they will lose business. And they will eventually turn around without government regulation. These laws really have no downside because there will be a full reversal over time. It is how the market works. This behavior will not last long whether or not these laws exist. Plus, if someone had a religious organization I see no reason to oppose some discrimination. Nonconfirmed people cannot intake Eucharist at the Catholic church--it is seen as okay--why? Religious freedom. If a catholic charity doesn't want to give a homosexual a service that is immoral but shouldn't be banned. Just because something is legal (e.g. gay marriage) does not mean it is required.

Oh yes, because Jim Crow and Apartheid were overthrown due to the opposition of white people to discriminatory practices in the market.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.