Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for gay community

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 11:14:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?

Come off it, TN05. This is not a fair question and you know it.

The gay community is not responsible for this lawsuit, and this lawsuit could have occurred for any number of other reasons by any other number of offended parties.
Same with the ruining of a business.

That being said, as I understand it, they want their down payment back, but the reason for cancelling the contract is wholly on the buyer, and as such, they should not have a chance of winning. However, I do not know how different Canadian law is to American.
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 12:27:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 11:14:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?

Come off it, TN05. This is not a fair question and you know it.

It is fair. Look at this tweet:

https://twitter.com...

Political columnist for a Canadian magazine says it's hypocritical to accept the order. I bet you if they declined to take the order, he'd support suing them for discrimination. Either way, the jeweller is damned.

The gay community is not responsible for this lawsuit, and this lawsuit could have occurred for any number of other reasons by any other number of offended parties.
Same with the ruining of a business.

That being said, as I understand it, they want their down payment back, but the reason for cancelling the contract is wholly on the buyer, and as such, they should not have a chance of winning. However, I do not know how different Canadian law is to American.

It's not a suit.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 12:43:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:27:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 11:14:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?

Come off it, TN05. This is not a fair question and you know it.

It is fair.
It's fair to hold the entire community responsible for the acts of a few?

Look at this tweet:


https://twitter.com...

Political columnist for a Canadian magazine says it's hypocritical to accept the order. I bet you if they declined to take the order, he'd support suing them for discrimination. Either way, the jeweller is damned.

What is hypocritical about it?
The fact that they no longer want the product, regardless of the reason, is always an issue.

The gay community is not responsible for this lawsuit, and this lawsuit could have occurred for any number of other reasons by any other number of offended parties.
Same with the ruining of a business.

That being said, as I understand it, they want their down payment back, but the reason for cancelling the contract is wholly on the buyer, and as such, they should not have a chance of winning. However, I do not know how different Canadian law is to American.

It's not a suit.
It will be, if they want the refund badly enough.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:27:54 PM, TN05 wrote:

Political columnist for a Canadian magazine says it's hypocritical to accept the order. I bet you if they declined to take the order, he'd support suing them for discrimination. Either way, the jeweller is damned.

Are you sure that is the issue here?
TruthS4yer
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:33:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage, even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.
Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.
Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?
I always find the concept of a "gay community" rather bizarre... as it almost suggests a hive mind. Anyhow the same-sex couple are in the wrong here and being idiots about it, though it is unwise for you to use this anecdote to generalise.

Your option 2, above, isn't accurate at all. They agreed to purchase something and will have to pay for it, as they should. The fact that the foolish couple are having a hissy fit about it is irrelevant. There are plenty of morons among any group... This is what you get when the general population is both ignorant of and indifferent to ethics... and we are encouraged to "respect" (I.E. avoid criticising) bad beliefs.

Anyhow, on the issue of getting sued for refusing to provide a service. It is debatable whether or not that should be permitted... there is certainly a case for legally prohibiting it however.

Those who, for example, refuse to bake a same-sex marriage cake are selectively opting out of society while still being beneficiaries of it. No part of the provision of their service requires their endorsement of same-sex marriage... they are merely baking a cake, the subsequent use of which is irrelevant (assuming it isn't criminal). They are no more required to celebrate the event than champaign makers are required to endorse all events their drinks are used at.

They are beneficiaries of society in that nobody refuses to serve them. Were other people aware of their views/practises, every service provided to the cake bakers, whether in their business or personal lives, could potentially be withdrawn. Society would effectively break down if such an approach were taken to fruition.

The fact that the service they provide incidentally affords them an awareness of their clients' relationship is no excuse. It seems inconsistent and hypocritical to opt out of society on the one hand, to discriminate against others, while benefiting from it themselves on the other.

Having said that, I'm not currently 100% opposed to the idea of a legal exemption for small private businesses, in the sense that it wouldn't hurt for LGBT people to take the moral high ground on this issue.
Please avoid quoting all of large posts - it needlessly means we have to scroll through them to navigate a thread.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.
I see some merit to their concern, but ultimately disagree the business is obligated to provide a refund on libertarian grounds.

Look at a different situation with a similar context. What if that was a black couple, and they later found out that jewelry store was run by the Ku Klux Klan, and profits from it go to racist organizations? Say the customer wasn't made aware of this information when funnelling their money through the business - is that wrong? Do they deserve a legal entitlement to a refund? That's a complicated issue, and it's similar to this one.

Really, if they were going to be upset about where their money was going, they should have done their research first. As a gay person, this is on them; not the business.

That is substantially different from the type of conduct that happens in businesses in the states, however.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?
What does political nonsense like this have to do with whether or not gay people at large deserve the fundamental right to equal unions in the eyes of the government, society, and the law?

Certainly, a lot of gay people to not support the behaviour aforementioned in your post. If one's basis for determining whether or not minority groups deserve equal privileges is individual incidents like this one, then it's likely that the reason for them not supporting gay marriage was their own bigotry in the first place; and this is just a scapegoat.

Like citing an example of a black person harassing a white person and saying that justifies not allowing interracial marriage.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:53:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:27:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
the jeweller is damned.
Yes, the jeweller is damned; and how is that unfair? They knowingly vocalized and created posters opposing rights and legal entitlements for same sex couples in a very socially liberal country. You'd be an idiot not to expect backlash. Overt gay people who try and open a bakery in Jesusville, Oklahoma will face the same backlash; that's just society expressing it's right to put their money into whichever business they see fit. That is only fair.

Anyhow, it's economic survival of the fittest. If they were stupid enough to do that as a Canadian business, they were probably bound to make a different dumb mistake and be damned for some other reason.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:54:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?"

Smh.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 8:46:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?

This little notion that one can have and express any opinion they have an not have to suffer any repercussions for it, it silly.

You hate people with black skin and feel compelled to express it in a place of business then tough luck. You feel compelled to comment on limiting gov's definition of marriage to eliminate gays from marring, then tough luck when people call you out on it.

You are trying to argue moral equivalence by saying a person anti-gay marriage is just as valid of opinion as a person supporting gay marriage.

They are not equally valid position due to:
1. The majority of people don't think they are morally valid and support gay marriage.
2. The argument of marriage and who is allowed is one of tort law and critical to the state since the state has the obligation of making rulings when the marriage "contract" is dissolved. The church law/mortality has nothing to do with it.

In other words, if you have embedded hatred of gay people and want to be anti-gay and not afford homosexuals the same protections when they make a long term financial and child rearing commitment with another person that is fine, but keep it to yourself.

This guy deserves everything he gets because his opinion unduly restricts the freedoms of individuals when offering that freedom to individuals has absolutely no bearing or impact upon himself.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 1:13:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This has to do with one of those crazy ideas that liberals believe in.
Being opposed to same sex marriage is the same thing as being opposed to multi-racial marriage so if you can't do this because the supreme court has ordered that you can't.
I don't know why 2 lesbians would want to marry each other, but the gay community has done so much to help get democrats elected believing in their marriages is a favor they have earned.
Therefore it is time for all good liberals to say they like gay marriage.

If you hate gays and gay marriage, you will still sell them an engagement ring. The mark-up on these rings is so high, no retailer can say no to this deal.
What they should do is go on Judge Judy. There, the one is more butch can explain to Judge Judy how spending all that money on the ring proves that she is completely serious about marrying the other one and, she is not just trying to get laid. And also spending so much money proves that her job pays her enough that she can financially support the other one and any children they may have.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 2:01:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
While the OP is somewhat inflammatory, he does have a point. The newfound rights of gay couples should not interfere in the rights of those who believe homosexuality to be immoral.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 6:39:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 5:53:22 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 5/25/2015 12:27:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
the jeweller is damned.
Yes, the jeweller is damned; and how is that unfair? They knowingly vocalized and created posters opposing rights and legal entitlements for same sex couples in a very socially liberal country. You'd be an idiot not to expect backlash. Overt gay people who try and open a bakery in Jesusville, Oklahoma will face the same backlash; that's just society expressing it's right to put their money into whichever business they see fit. That is only fair.

How is being abused because a majority of the people support something fair? Seems a bit arbitrary. Backlash? Sure. Have fun losing business. But I don't know how you can support the legal system strong arming social conservative simply because they disagree with the moral majority. That doesn't even warrant a lawsuit.


Anyhow, it's economic survival of the fittest. If they were stupid enough to do that as a Canadian business, they were probably bound to make a different dumb mistake and be damned for some other reason.

I agree with this part. Of course they're going to lose business. But I don't think you can justify what the extreme segment of the gay rights movement is doing. And I have to say "extreme" because the non-vocal gay rights activists would probably say "wtf". And I also had to stress "non-vocal" because only extremists are very vocal because their vision is not in existence. Why do you think I am so vocal on gun rights ;D
https://www.youtube.com...
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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 6:41:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 5:54:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
"Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?"

Smh.

Yeah, lol. Pretty sure over 60% support it now despite this crap. Nothing can stop it. Agree with ya 1harder. Even I would probably say "support" if Gallup polling called me right now.
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
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 6:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 2:01:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
While the OP is somewhat inflammatory, he does have a point. The newfound rights of gay couples should not interfere in the rights of those who believe homosexuality to be immoral.

Ok.

I own a business. I do not allow Jews in my store. This is against my religious beliefs.

Would you support that?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 6:59:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 6:39:02 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/25/2015 5:53:22 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 5/25/2015 12:27:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
the jeweller is damned.
Yes, the jeweller is damned; and how is that unfair? They knowingly vocalized and created posters opposing rights and legal entitlements for same sex couples in a very socially liberal country. You'd be an idiot not to expect backlash. Overt gay people who try and open a bakery in Jesusville, Oklahoma will face the same backlash; that's just society expressing it's right to put their money into whichever business they see fit. That is only fair.

How is being abused because a majority of the people support something fair? Seems a bit arbitrary. Backlash? Sure. Have fun losing business. But I don't know how you can support the legal system strong arming social conservative simply because they disagree with the moral majority. That doesn't even warrant a lawsuit.
No, I think you misinterpret what I was saying :P

I don't support the legal system arming anybody - the lawsuit that these people (the couple) are pushing is stupid and unnecessary. That being said, they jewellers deserve to lose business, or even go out of business, because [practically] nobody in Canada wants to funnel their money into a business that is going to use that money to campaign against their value systems. You shouldn't ask people to.

The same thing would apply to nobody in Conservative America wanting to visit a jewelry that is going to funnel its money into Pro-LGBT groups. If the business-owner doesn't want backlash, don't use your money that way - or at least don't be overt about it like these people. That's fair enough, I think - if you want to make political statements through your business, expect the logical degree of backlash.


Anyhow, it's economic survival of the fittest. If they were stupid enough to do that as a Canadian business, they were probably bound to make a different dumb mistake and be damned for some other reason.

I agree with this part. Of course they're going to lose business. But I don't think you can justify what the extreme segment of the gay rights movement is doing.
haha. My conceptualization of "extreme" are the men who go out in gay pride parades dressed in pink mankinis protesting 'heteronormativity', but this works too.

But yes, I agree, these people are on the 'extreme' side, per se. I don't actually think they expect to really win this lawsuit; and if they do I'd be disappointed in my country's legal system.
And I have to say "extreme" because the non-vocal gay rights activists would probably say "wtf".
maybe not in the same sense that a moderate republican would "wtf" michele bachmann when she says vaccines made her daughter retarded, but yes, these people are abusing the legal system (probably) to get in a little press airtime for the LGBT rights movement.
And I also had to stress "non-vocal" because only extremists are very vocal because their vision is not in existence. Why do you think I am so vocal on gun rights ;D
https://www.youtube.com...
lol. I don't really care about gun rights all that much; it doesn't affect me because I feel no need to buy a gun or have one. Probably the same type of feeling you have about SSM ;P

I can't quite say I understand the desire to own an extensive allotment of assault rifles (for defence purposes, I'll rip from Joe Biden and say "buy a shotgun"), but if they're adequately controlled and it's assured that crazy people can't get ahold of them, go for it bruh.

Oh, and what do you think of public carry? to be honest I don't feel it serves a significant purpose beyond terrorizing families in the walmart parking lot vs concealed carry
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 7:13:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 6:59:53 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 5/26/2015 6:39:02 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/25/2015 5:53:22 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 5/25/2015 12:27:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
the jeweller is damned.
Yes, the jeweller is damned; and how is that unfair? They knowingly vocalized and created posters opposing rights and legal entitlements for same sex couples in a very socially liberal country. You'd be an idiot not to expect backlash. Overt gay people who try and open a bakery in Jesusville, Oklahoma will face the same backlash; that's just society expressing it's right to put their money into whichever business they see fit. That is only fair.

How is being abused because a majority of the people support something fair? Seems a bit arbitrary. Backlash? Sure. Have fun losing business. But I don't know how you can support the legal system strong arming social conservative simply because they disagree with the moral majority. That doesn't even warrant a lawsuit.
No, I think you misinterpret what I was saying :P

I don't support the legal system arming anybody - the lawsuit that these people (the couple) are pushing is stupid and unnecessary. That being said, they jewellers deserve to lose business, or even go out of business, because [practically] nobody in Canada wants to funnel their money into a business that is going to use that money to campaign against their value systems. You shouldn't ask people to.

The same thing would apply to nobody in Conservative America wanting to visit a jewelry that is going to funnel its money into Pro-LGBT groups. If the business-owner doesn't want backlash, don't use your money that way - or at least don't be overt about it like these people. That's fair enough, I think - if you want to make political statements through your business, expect the logical degree of backlash.

So we agree. kk. I think it is wrong that we judge companies like that on a personal level (only time I wouldn't go into a store for those reasons would be if it was a gun free zone because when I turn 21 I am totally carrying, and a gun free zone directly harms me. A company supporting abortion doesn't), but it is a consequence which is inevitable. Fair? No. Desirable? No. But it will always exist in a market economy m8.



Anyhow, it's economic survival of the fittest. If they were stupid enough to do that as a Canadian business, they were probably bound to make a different dumb mistake and be damned for some other reason.

I agree with this part. Of course they're going to lose business. But I don't think you can justify what the extreme segment of the gay rights movement is doing.
haha. My conceptualization of "extreme" are the men who go out in gay pride parades dressed in pink mankinis protesting 'heteronormativity', but this works too.

But yes, I agree, these people are on the 'extreme' side, per se. I don't actually think they expect to really win this lawsuit; and if they do I'd be disappointed in my country's legal system.
And I have to say "extreme" because the non-vocal gay rights activists would probably say "wtf".
maybe not in the same sense that a moderate republican would "wtf" michele bachmann when she says vaccines made her daughter retarded, but yes, these people are abusing the legal system (probably) to get in a little press airtime for the LGBT rights movement.

Wait she said that sh!t? That gives me cancer. I know that Chris Christie shut down some b!tch who said something like that. I mean, he flip flopped, but it could always be that he researched the issue. I actually admire politicians who change time to time. As long as they aren't John Kerry or Mitt Romney who only switch because they need their base. If anything, this change may harm him with the base. Why am I even talking about that sh!t? Whatever. Here is him on vaccines:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
And I also had to stress "non-vocal" because only extremists are very vocal because their vision is not in existence. Why do you think I am so vocal on gun rights ;D
https://www.youtube.com...
lol. I don't really care about gun rights all that much; it doesn't affect me because I feel no need to buy a gun or have one. Probably the same type of feeling you have about SSM ;P

Yeah that is how I feel about SSM, lol.

But guns are so much fun m8! And in America it helps fite da baddies.


I can't quite say I understand the desire to own an extensive allotment of assault rifles (for defence purposes, I'll rip from Joe Biden and say "buy a shotgun"), but if they're adequately controlled and it's assured that crazy people can't get ahold of them, go for it bruh.

We have two assault weapons. And Shotguns are good for defense because, unlike an assault rifle (hate that name for it, I can explain why if you want, it is super gun illiterate, *rage*), the bullets *probably* won't go through the wall and possibly hit the neighbor a few feet away. But assault rifles are cool. We made both of those. There is little evidence that banning them does any good. I know some say it affects the cartel violence, but I haven't read into that aspect much. If anything, assault weapons (because they look scary) seem to deter criminals more than they cause crime. They are rarely used in overall crime, anyway.


Oh, and what do you think of public carry? to be honest I don't feel it serves a significant purpose beyond terrorizing families in the walmart parking lot vs concealed carry

I mean it should be legal but there is no point. Concealed carry has a much larger deterrence value because criminals don't know who is armed. If 1% (which is a realistic number in many states) of the population carry a gun, but you don't know who, you're gonna be pretty worried about each person. You're gonna case each person a lot harder. And in a public setting, you may not wan't to do anything because mr 16k might be sitting there and say "hey b1tch don't rob that old lady."

Open carry is easy to avoid. "Sh!t, Tex 16k has a glock. Ima wait until he leaves." But if he wanted to shoot everyone up he goes after me first. So I think open carry should be allowed--because, if anything, it should make gun nuts more chill because they know who is armed--but it probably does not reduce crime like concealed carry does. I have not seen any hard data on open carry, though. Here is this, though (http://www.usnews.com...). So I am okay with open carry, but I like concealed carry a lot more. And yeah, you don't have to deal with hippies confronting you about it.
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
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 7:33:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?

This is stupid. If the sign was posted for religious reasons, and he (the store owner) denied them (the lesbians) service, that would be one thing, but if these people were so concerned about a person's religious beliefs that they would elect not to do business with a store which is owned and/or operated by an individual who professes religious beliefs that they disagreed with, they should have inquired before.

Should he have posted the sign? No. That's more idiotic, bad business strategy and comprehensively devoid of practical value in the advancement of his cause in any way whatsoever -other than to make dumb people say "preach it, brother." Should people be able to return items because they later discovered a reason not to like the guy who sold it to them? Absolutely not. It's a sale that's already been executed.

Now... a brief comment on signs and religious beliefs:

I don't care what yours are. If you must, feel compelled, or are otherwise inclined for any reason to profess them from a sign, I am automatically suspicious of you and I will judge you severely for it. Religion need not be professed from a sign.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 7:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 7:33:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?

This is stupid. If the sign was posted for religious reasons, and he (the store owner) denied them (the lesbians) service, that would be one thing, but if these people were so concerned about a person's religious beliefs that they would elect not to do business with a store which is owned and/or operated by an individual who professes religious beliefs that they disagreed with, they should have inquired before.

Should he have posted the sign? No. That's more idiotic, bad business strategy and comprehensively devoid of practical value in the advancement of his cause in any way whatsoever -other than to make dumb people say "preach it, brother." Should people be able to return items because they later discovered a reason not to like the guy who sold it to them? Absolutely not. It's a sale that's already been executed.

Now... a brief comment on signs and religious beliefs:

I don't care what yours are. If you must, feel compelled, or are otherwise inclined for any reason to profess them from a sign, I am automatically suspicious of you and I will judge you severely for it. Religion need not be professed from a sign.

Excellent response.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 7:56:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 7:13:45 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Fair? No. Desirable? No. But it will always exist in a market economy m8.
It depends on the circumstances for me. If the engagement ring I really wanted was uniquely available at this jeweller, would I buy it? Yes. The benefit for me there outweighs whatever consequences come of me giving my money to these people. That being said, if I was burdened with the inconvenience of driving an extra half an hour to the next jeweller along, whom I know to be friendly to me and my interests/values, then I will.

If that person was friendly, willing to serve me, and *wasn't* using the money I'm paying for the jewelry to create propaganda or politicized content, then I'd probably go there out of convenience. I don't hold personal vendettas against people I don't know; I think that's edging on pathetic.

Wait she said that sh!t? That gives me cancer.
Something like that. I remember I cringed when I saw it a few years ago when it was online. It was on an interview for CNN.
I know that Chris Christie shut down some b!tch who said something like that. I mean, he flip flopped, but it could always be that he researched the issue. I actually admire politicians who change time to time. As long as they aren't John Kerry or Mitt Romney who only switch because they need their base. If anything, this change may harm him with the base. Why am I even talking about that sh!t? Whatever. Here is him on vaccines:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Yeah, it's really hard to tell for me whether that change constitutes a "flip flop" or an actual, genuine transformation of their opinion. I like to say that Republicans do it a lot because I loathe Santorum/Bachmann/Palin types more than anything in this world, but dems do it a lot too, they're just more politician-like about how they do it.

Obama, for example, held large opposition to stuff like SSM when viewing it unfavourably was the norm and the popular opinion. He vocalized and even lent large amounts of support to legislation that opposed it. So did the Clintons and like, tons of other dems. But in the span of a few years there was a sudden 'reformation' amongst the Democratic Party once popular opinion swayed in favour of the LGBT movement.

Now, I have no doubt that Obama maybe did change his mind (really, I'm sure at some point he did); and so do people like Christie and all other politicians on tons of issues. But the way they presented that change, that new opinion, was politicking and I don't think it was genuine at all.

In fact, if the popular opinion was that vaccines caused autism, or that parents have a right to choose, I'm sure the lot of them would be saying the exact opposite thing they are now.

Unless it is a fundamental tenet of their value system, which vaccines for conservatives and SSM for democrats are usually not, everyone in politics will probably flipflop on it.

That's why I like mah bipartisan candidates. Because they have less of a commitment to just favouring/opposing things out of partisan convenience; they show a willingness to reach across the aisle on issues they genuinely disagree with their party on.
I can't quite say I understand the desire to own an extensive allotment of assault rifles (for defence purposes, I'll rip from Joe Biden and say "buy a shotgun"), but if they're adequately controlled and it's assured that crazy people can't get ahold of them, go for it bruh.

We have two assault weapons. And Shotguns are good for defense because, unlike an assault rifle (hate that name for it, I can explain why if you want, it is super gun illiterate, *rage*), the bullets *probably* won't go through the wall and possibly hit the neighbor a few feet away. But assault rifles are cool. We made both of those. There is little evidence that banning them does any good. I know some say it affects the cartel violence, but I haven't read into that aspect much. If anything, assault weapons (because they look scary) seem to deter criminals more than they cause crime. They are rarely used in overall crime, anyway.
My principal conflict on this issue is concerning people who have psychotic breaks or mental illnesses, not the 'baddies' in that context :P

A lot of perpetrators of mass shootings weren't "criminals" in the traditionalist sense of the word before they committed the act - i.e they had little to no criminal records. They were ordinary people with more subliminal mental illnesses that were, as it stands, capable of passing things like background checks. Or people with legitimate mental problems that circumvented the system.

Unless you're willing to commit to finding ways to prevent these people from having access to more dangerous calibers of weaponry, you have to weigh the potential risk of allowing possession vs any perceived benefits of possessing the gun.

And really, the only benefit that I can see that come with possessing those particular types of weaponry is the simple liberty and entitlement to them as a free citizen, because they're not particularly more useful for self defence but are particularly more dangerous... that whole justification sort of sounds like a dumb reason to me in the end; hence why I'm bothered by the whole thing. But I don't care enough and I'm too libertarian to really be upset about it, so meh. In the end, I'd call myself for gun rights.

Open carry is easy to avoid. "Sh!t, Tex 16k has a glock. Ima wait until he leaves." But if he wanted to shoot everyone up he goes after me first.
Open carry probably does deter some crime, but again, weigh the benefits. Would you not imagine you're going to get a lot of panicked 911 calls from panicked mothers, or really just frightened people, who think the person is a threat? (because most Americans, at least where I'm from, are not used to seeing guns in public places). That'll waste taxpayer money and probably create more difficulty for already burdened police forces. IDK if the limited benefits are significant enough to make it worthwhile.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 7:56:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?

Now that I've said how stupid I think the entire situation is... let's talk about this question of yours.

Yes. There are a lot of people (read: morons) who will look at a case like this, and they will think to myself "Bah! Those homoqueerofaggots! They're all like this! I'm having none of this!" and then return to their Sunday pew and listen to a sermon of the love and mercy of Jesus Christ for all people. Those are the *only* people who would be dumb enough to think that this case represents all gay people. And let's be clear... they never were going to support gay marriage anyway.

There are some people who are not persuadable. The people who would view this one incident as indicative of some inherent quality of gay people would never have supported gay marriage to begin with. These are also the people who, generally, would kick their kids out of the house for being gay; disown their own children even if minors and totally dependent on them (the parents); etc. These are not rational, reasonable people who consider the thoughts and perspectives of others.

Now... let's be clear about something else: I have people like that in my family. When I say "morons" I am specifically referring to people with whom I have close personal experience. I know them. I have celebrated holidays with them. I grew up with their children, my cousins. Not all rednecks are like that, but *many* are precisely that 'set in their ways'.

They are the kind of people who are going to say 'preach it, brother!' and who will go on "Go Fund Me" sites to donate lots of money to the likes of such businesses as who took it upon themselves to discriminate against gay people; people who will support those who manifest an intent to deny others who are different than them equal treatment under the law.

But again... they would have ****never**** supported gay rights in any regard; specifically not gay marriage; ever... whether this annoyingly unpleasant news story had come to light or not.
Tsar of DDO
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 8:08:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 7:56:17 PM, YYW wrote:
But again... they would have ****never**** supported gay rights in any regard; specifically not gay marriage; ever... whether this annoyingly unpleasant news story had come to light or not.
Yeah, I agree. This was my immediate reaction as well, this is a scapegoat for gay marriage opposition; if this is something that actually majorly sways your opinion on this issue, you've got some underlying prejudice going on.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 8:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 7:56:04 PM, Daltonian wrote:
If a christian or conservative jeweller who opposes SSM was friendly, willing to serve me, and *wasn't* using the money I'm paying for the jewelry to create propaganda or politicized content, then I'd probably go there out of convenience. I don't hold personal vendettas against people I don't know; I think that's edging on pathetic.
fix'd
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 8:12:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 8:09:46 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 5/26/2015 7:56:04 PM, Daltonian wrote:
If a christian or conservative jeweller who opposes SSM was friendly, willing to serve me, and *wasn't* using the money I'm paying for the jewelry to create propaganda or politicized content, then I'd probably go there out of convenience. I don't hold personal vendettas against people I don't know; I think that's edging on pathetic.
fix'd

Generally, I'm the same way. There are exceptions.... but generally, I'm the same way.
Tsar of DDO
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 8:17:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 8:12:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:09:46 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 5/26/2015 7:56:04 PM, Daltonian wrote:
If a christian or conservative jeweller who opposes SSM was friendly, willing to serve me, and *wasn't* using the money I'm paying for the jewelry to create propaganda or politicized content, then I'd probably go there out of convenience. I don't hold personal vendettas against people I don't know; I think that's edging on pathetic.
fix'd

Generally, I'm the same way. There are exceptions.... but generally, I'm the same way.
Yeah, I really don't get the gay people who think that blind animosity towards everyone who doesn't share their perspective on sexuality will help better the image of people who are LGBT.. I don't really care if someone finds my sexual practices repulsive or think that I have no entitlement to equal unions, so long as they don't bother me about it and don't pursue that perspective using taxpayer money or government, I could care less. In fact, I'd maybe even appreciate their conviction.

Even if someone morally disagrees with you, if respect is given, give it back..
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 10:24:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:23:03 AM, TN05 wrote:
Given that a gay couple in Canada has demanded a refund from a business they presume opposes gay marriage (http://www.cbc.ca...), even though the business happily served them, why the fvck should anti-gay marriage people have to provide services for your weddings? It seems like the people who aren't 100% in favor are in the following position:
1. Refuse service. Get sued in court to provide service over your personal views, and possibly have your business destroyed.
2. Give service, but gay couples can ask for service and then demand a refund when they decide they don't like you, and possibly have your business destroyed.

Seems like you just want to fvck with anyone who might disagree with you.

Crap like this is why many will never support gay marriage?

I support gay marriage as much as I support animal rights. In other words, not very much but not very little. Marriage is a subject I don't relate to. Although I found the news absolutely weird.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:17:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some people would do anything for a refund. Honestly, as someone who has worked in retail, I sympathize more with whichever clerk had to deal with the idiots than I do with the people who tried to return merchandise because they had a political difference with the store owner. You want to vote with your dollar? Fine, then find stuff like this out BEFORE you buy something.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:30:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 6:49:56 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/26/2015 2:01:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
While the OP is somewhat inflammatory, he does have a point. The newfound rights of gay couples should not interfere in the rights of those who believe homosexuality to be immoral.

Ok.

I own a business. I do not allow Jews in my store. This is against my religious beliefs.

Would you support that?

If you genuinely believe that serving Jews is sinful.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:32:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 6:30:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/26/2015 6:49:56 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/26/2015 2:01:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
While the OP is somewhat inflammatory, he does have a point. The newfound rights of gay couples should not interfere in the rights of those who believe homosexuality to be immoral.

Ok.

I own a business. I do not allow Jews in my store. This is against my religious beliefs.

Would you support that?

If you genuinely believe that serving Jews is sinful.

I don't think you honestly would.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 12:30:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 6:32:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/27/2015 6:30:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/26/2015 6:49:56 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/26/2015 2:01:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
While the OP is somewhat inflammatory, he does have a point. The newfound rights of gay couples should not interfere in the rights of those who believe homosexuality to be immoral.

Ok.

I own a business. I do not allow Jews in my store. This is against my religious beliefs.

Would you support that?

If you genuinely believe that serving Jews is sinful.

I don't think you honestly would.

Yes I would, if they genuinely believed that. Of course, there will always be somebody who's willing to provide X service.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid