Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Opponents to the Indiana law should read this

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 3:40:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:21:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

It amazes me how stupid some on the right can be...

I take it you disagree with the article.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

"Freedom of Association" doesn't justify discrimination. People used the same exact arguments against the integration of educational institutions, removal of Jim Crow laws in the South, interracial marriage among other things. Please stop with these excuses. Your right to be a bigot doesn't trump civil or human rights.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:21:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

It amazes me how stupid some on the right can be...

It amazes me as well. They are so out of touch with reality and can't see past their own bigotry.
Arcanas
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:57:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:53:34 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/4/2015 3:21:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

It amazes me how stupid some on the right can be...

It amazes me as well. They are so out of touch with reality and can't see past their own bigotry.

I completely agree. I can't believe how ridiculous some are...
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:30:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

I don't care to.
I just hate the very idea of religion being given any legal ground.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 7:21:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

Is this really the justification of this law? I can only imagine what policy makers think of the so called "minorities".

Freedom of association is a nice way of saying Segregation. Bring back Jim crow while you are at it. I bet you they are going to use the curse of ham for the religious justification for black and brown people next.

When did segregation become normal? Oh right it always has been. If this isn't blatant proof of white, heterosexual cis-gendered, rich privilege I don't know what is.

How can you even fathom legislating against a whole people just because you don't want to be associated with them? This sounds like some 2 year old nonsense. Are people really that scared to be around someone that different than themselves? Shows the level of innate insecurity, privilege and down right hate of themselves and using religion to cover it. What told you that it was okay to alienate another person? What happened to the golden rule, do onto others?

These people do not know the difference between public and private spaces. A store is not a private church, mosque, synagogue etc. Corporations are not people. A religious belief shouldn't trump a civil right. Doesn't God say that?

The nerve of some people.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I suppose that I shouldn't have expected any responses better than this; this subject tends to draw out people's emotions, and rational thinking is suppressed by the more animal-like parts of the human brain.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:47:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:01:40 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I suppose that I shouldn't have expected any responses better than this; this subject tends to draw out people's emotions, and rational thinking is suppressed by the more animal-like parts of the human brain.

Were you trying to facilitate debate on this topic? The answer seems obvious to me. If you were expecting a viable debate maybe state some of your premises. Just giving an article obviously leaves the reader to react with his or her opinions.

Or maybe you were trolling?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 9:43:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:47:07 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:01:40 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I suppose that I shouldn't have expected any responses better than this; this subject tends to draw out people's emotions, and rational thinking is suppressed by the more animal-like parts of the human brain.

Were you trying to facilitate debate on this topic? The answer seems obvious to me. If you were expecting a viable debate maybe state some of your premises. Just giving an article obviously leaves the reader to react with his or her opinions.

Or maybe you were trolling?

Nobody here has justified their stance. They simply bash the refusing business for being "hateful" and they scream "it's discrimination" like it's the newest addition to the Gospel. They aren't making any effort to understand the side of the refusing business. This just reeks of irrational thinking.
The Right Wing tends to have lots of very vocal people who are ignorant of the facts. However, in this case I think I can honestly accuse the Left of even more ignorance.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

That being said, I'd suggest reading some articles The Federalist has put out on this topic. They have given excellent fact-based responses to critics. Here are a few:

*I Support Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom Laws (http://thefederalist.com...)
*The End of Tolerance and Enforced Morality (http://thefederalist.com...)
*Religious Freedom Acts Have Never Harmed a Gay Person (http://thefederalist.com...)
*Legal Precedent Shows Religious Freedom Laws Don't Allow Discrimination (http://thefederalist.com...)

I'd also point to the opinion of Andrew Sullivan, a voice of reason on this issue (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com...)

"I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding " or anything else for that matter " if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well."
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 1:45:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This issue is one of individual freedoms being in conflict with commerce law. The owner or worker of a business may be religious, and as such doesn't want to do something that is allegedly against his beliefs. But regardless of the faiths of those working for it, a business simply is not (or at least should not be) religious. So if a baker doesn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, he has a couple of options to avoid violating his bigotry: 1) don't bake wedding cakes for anyone, 2) bake a "straight" wedding cake and let the gay couple "gay it up" or whatever, or 3) have a non-homophobe bake the cake.

This is no different than a pharmacist refusing to sell contraception, or a Muslim grocery clerk refusing to touch pork when checking someone out. I can accept that the superstitious folks want to avoid risking 7 years of bad luck for treating those they find to be "icky" with respect, but a business that caters to the public can't discriminate based on this kind of stuff.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 2:16:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Private citizens should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they want to. No one has a right to anyone's time or services, so no rights can be violated by denying anyone service.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 4:46:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 1:45:32 PM, Burzmali wrote:
This issue is one of individual freedoms being in conflict with commerce law. The owner or worker of a business may be religious, and as such doesn't want to do something that is allegedly against his beliefs. But regardless of the faiths of those working for it, a business simply is not (or at least should not be) religious. So if a baker doesn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, he has a couple of options to avoid violating his bigotry: 1) don't bake wedding cakes for anyone, 2) bake a "straight" wedding cake and let the gay couple "gay it up" or whatever, or 3) have a non-homophobe bake the cake.

This is no different than a pharmacist refusing to sell contraception, or a Muslim grocery clerk refusing to touch pork when checking someone out. I can accept that the superstitious folks want to avoid risking 7 years of bad luck for treating those they find to be "icky" with respect, but a business that caters to the public can't discriminate based on this kind of stuff.

Most of what you said was reasonable (even if I don't quite agree) but the bolded makes no sense at all. Did you mean to say this *is* different from these things? Because no forcing Muslim delis to carry pork sounds like a reasonable accommodation by even the strictest of standards
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:14:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 7:21:14 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

Is this really the justification of this law? I can only imagine what policy makers think of the so called "minorities".
What told you that gays are a minority while individuals are not?
Freedom of association is a nice way of saying Segregation. Bring back Jim crow while you are at it. I bet you they are going to use the curse of ham for the religious justification for black and brown people next.

When did segregation become normal? Oh right it always has been. If this isn't blatant proof of white, heterosexual cis-gendered, rich privilege I don't know what is.
What told you that "privilege" should be outlawed by way of guns?
How can you even fathom legislating against a whole people just because you don't want to be associated with them? This sounds like some 2 year old nonsense. Are people really that scared to be around someone that different than themselves? Shows the level of innate insecurity, privilege and down right hate of themselves and using religion to cover it. What told you that it was okay to alienate another person? What happened to the golden rule, do onto others?
What told you that it was okay to enslave other people against their will?
These people do not know the difference between public and private spaces. A store is not a private church, mosque, synagogue etc. Corporations are not people. A religious belief shouldn't trump a civil right. Doesn't God say that?
Who told you that businesses aren't made up of private individuals?
The nerve of some people.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 9:06:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 4:46:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:45:32 PM, Burzmali wrote:
This issue is one of individual freedoms being in conflict with commerce law. The owner or worker of a business may be religious, and as such doesn't want to do something that is allegedly against his beliefs. But regardless of the faiths of those working for it, a business simply is not (or at least should not be) religious. So if a baker doesn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, he has a couple of options to avoid violating his bigotry: 1) don't bake wedding cakes for anyone, 2) bake a "straight" wedding cake and let the gay couple "gay it up" or whatever, or 3) have a non-homophobe bake the cake.

This is no different than a pharmacist refusing to sell contraception, or a Muslim grocery clerk refusing to touch pork when checking someone out. I can accept that the superstitious folks want to avoid risking 7 years of bad luck for treating those they find to be "icky" with respect, but a business that caters to the public can't discriminate based on this kind of stuff.

Most of what you said was reasonable (even if I don't quite agree) but the bolded makes no sense at all. Did you mean to say this *is* different from these things? Because no forcing Muslim delis to carry pork sounds like a reasonable accommodation by even the strictest of standards

No, I was talking about a Muslim employee not wanting to touch pork. Specifically, there have been a couple of instances where accommodations have been made for Muslim grocery clerks who refuse to handle pork when checking out a customer. Just a business has to make accommodations for the religious faith of its employees, so too it must make accommodations for religious employees to avoid discriminating against customers. That misreading of my post sort of gets to my point, though.

Confusion between individuals and businesses seems to be at the heart of the controversy. No Muslim/Halal store should be required to carry pork, for numerous reasons. One big one is that what you carry as inventory, or which services you provide in general, are not related to discrimination. It isn't discriminatory to not carry pork. It would be discriminatory to carry pork, but not sell it to a particular person because of his/her ethnicity, race, gender, etc. That's why one potential solution for a homophobic Christian baker is to simply stop offering wedding cakes altogether.

Also, I should say that I don't personally care if businesses are allowed, in general, to discriminate or not. That's probably my white, male privilege apathy showing, though. But if we aren't allowing discrimination, then that should apply universally. There shouldn't be some unevidenced, untested religious excuse for breaking the law.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 9:34:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why this article is stupid:

After all, the nation"s first freedom, stated expressly in the First Amendment, is religious liberty. Yet our vast body of modern anti-discrimination law would seem to be at war with that liberty.

This is stupid. Freedom to practice one's religion as one pleases does not imply the right to inflict one's religion on other people. That established, if a person cannot both enter the marketplace (read: sell sh!t to people) without discriminating to uphold their "values" -however sincerely held- then that person is better off not entering in the marketplace.

Does a Christian minister, if asked, have to officiate at a gay wedding?

No. The constitution 'in fact' forbids compelling religious acts or ceremonies.

Can we sanction a Muslim caterer if he refuses to serve pork at the reception if the couple requests it?

This is so profoundly stupid. The choice of which food to serve is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than the choice of whom to serve or not to serve on the basis of religious beliefs. The former does not discriminate against PEOPLE but instead discriminates against FOOD. The latter discriminates -without lawful purpose- against people. People on the right are so stupid. This is so searingly idiotic, I am without words.

And beyond the gay marriage or religion context, does an all-female health club have to admit men? Are men"s clubs any longer legal?

If the club is private, then no. But, pizza parlors in Indiana are not private. They're businesses open to the public. Again, the stupidity of those on the right is befuddling.

The religious freedom controversies underscore the changing nature of freedom of association.
Roger Pilon
April 4, 2015

inShare
Printer-friendly version
With the dust apparently settling at week"s end on the Indiana and Arkansas religious freedom compromises, and the Final Four expected to proceed in peace this weekend in Indianapolis, it"s worth a little post-mortem reflection on the state of religious freedom in America and, more broadly, on freedom of association.

After all, the nation"s first freedom, stated expressly in the First Amendment, is religious liberty. Yet our vast body of modern anti-discrimination law would seem to be at war with that liberty. Just look at some of the questions proponents of Indiana"s law posed as the battle intensified.

Does a Christian minister, if asked, have to officiate at a gay wedding? May an orthodox Jewish printer decline to supply the invitations? Can we sanction a Muslim caterer if he refuses to serve pork at the reception if the couple requests it?

And beyond the gay marriage or religion context, does an all-female health club have to admit men? Are men"s clubs any longer legal? Does a gay bar have to admit straight men"or women? And back to religion, if the Christian Legal Society at a public law school wants the institutional support the school offers to other student groups, does it have to allow atheists to be not only members but officers?

The Supreme Court has already answered that last question: They do. But the vote was 5-4.

That is a boldfaced lie at best, and incompetent reading of the Hobby Lobby decision at worst.
Tsar of DDO
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:55:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM, TN05 wrote:
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

According to whom? You're not black, you're also not gay, therefore you really have no authority as to what is and is not offensive to black or gay people.

As far as I am concerned they are literally the SAME THING, exact parallel issues. Both were used to disenfranchise a minority group, and even used religion and "Freedom of Association" to justify them.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:04:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:01:40 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I suppose that I shouldn't have expected any responses better than this; this subject tends to draw out people's emotions, and rational thinking is suppressed by the more animal-like parts of the human brain.

Sorry to tell you Vox, but emotional response can be rational and is an indication that we have something called 'empathy' something a lot of conservatives seem to lack. You may feel as if discrimination against people is justifiable, but it doesn't stop actual rational people from deploring such a mentality.

"Freedom of Association" is not a legitimate excuse to discriminate against any group of people, at least not in public, tax funded businesses and institutions.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 12:40:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

The fundamental problem with this article is that the author admits that in order to eliminate discrimination of African Americans the state had to not allow the freedom to associate in cases of race or nation of origin.

So what is the difference here?

Just because a religion is making a call to moral standard does not need to mean the state has to recognize that moral standard.

If I was a Priest who believed blacks were not of the same standards as whites should I be forced to baptize them in the whites only fountain?

If one accepts that the state has a role to straighten out a mass perpetrated wrong then yes my hand should be forced despite my religious conviction.

Where this guy also gets it wrong is that in Indiana and Arkansas there already was a freedom to associate based upon sexual orientation and neither state was in threat of passing laws making sexual orientation as a protected class.

Why was the religious freedom act needed in the first place, especially when its passage does bring questions whether the common law covers not discriminating two gay guys walking into a bar. (pun intended)
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 1:23:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM, TN05 wrote:
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

That being said, I'd suggest reading some articles The Federalist has put out on this topic. They have given excellent fact-based responses to critics. Here are a few:

*I Support Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom Laws (http://thefederalist.com...)
*The End of Tolerance and Enforced Morality (http://thefederalist.com...)
*Religious Freedom Acts Have Never Harmed a Gay Person (http://thefederalist.com...)
*Legal Precedent Shows Religious Freedom Laws Don't Allow Discrimination (http://thefederalist.com...)

I'd also point to the opinion of Andrew Sullivan, a voice of reason on this issue (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com...)

"I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding " or anything else for that matter " if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well."

I agree with Sullivan. As a general rule, discrimination based on sexuality should be disallowed, but with particular services which are obviously geared towards heterosexuals (i.e. traditional weddings), it makes no sense to force their providers to serve homosexuals.
anything your heart desires
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 1:25:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:14:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/5/2015 7:21:14 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 3:03:37 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://nationalinterest.org...

Is this really the justification of this law? I can only imagine what policy makers think of the so called "minorities".
What told you that gays are a minority while individuals are not?

This whole individualism point is moot seeming as though the rest of the world clumps everyone into monoliths of people. If this was a true individualist society we wouldn't have these problems.
Freedom of association is a nice way of saying Segregation. Bring back Jim crow while you are at it. I bet you they are going to use the curse of ham for the religious justification for black and brown people next.

When did segregation become normal? Oh right it always has been. If this isn't blatant proof of white, heterosexual cis-gendered, rich privilege I don't know what is.
What told you that "privilege" should be outlawed by way of guns?

Who said anything about guns? And outlawed? Have you not studied history everyone knows once you start legislating against anything it gets worse. No one said anything about that, I was merely pointing out that this sis proof of the phenomena if one individual could come up with such a thing, and 1,000's of other individuals agree with it.

How can you even fathom legislating against a whole people just because you don't want to be associated with them? This sounds like some 2 year old nonsense. Are people really that scared to be around someone that different than themselves? Shows the level of innate insecurity, privilege and down right hate of themselves and using religion to cover it. What told you that it was okay to alienate another person? What happened to the golden rule, do onto others?
What told you that it was okay to enslave other people against their will?

I really think you are misunderstanding what I said. What you are saying is all in accordance to my argument. What is your real reason for responding?
These people do not know the difference between public and private spaces. A store is not a private church, mosque, synagogue etc. Corporations are not people. A religious belief shouldn't trump a civil right. Doesn't God say that?

Who told you that businesses aren't made up of private individuals?

You begging these questions are hilarious.

The nerve of some people.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 2:47:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:55:37 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM, TN05 wrote:
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

According to whom? You're not black, you're also not gay, therefore you really have no authority as to what is and is not offensive to black or gay people.

As far as I am concerned they are literally the SAME THING, exact parallel issues. Both were used to disenfranchise a minority group, and even used religion and "Freedom of Association" to justify them.

I told you never to talk to me again because of this little gem:

At 4/1/2015 11:23:28 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No the problem is you, but like all mentally handicapped people you fail to see your own ignorance because it's convenient for you to wallow in it.

Go away. Never talk to me again. How hard is that to understand?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 2:50:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 1:23:36 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM, TN05 wrote:
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

That being said, I'd suggest reading some articles The Federalist has put out on this topic. They have given excellent fact-based responses to critics. Here are a few:

*I Support Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom Laws (http://thefederalist.com...)
*The End of Tolerance and Enforced Morality (http://thefederalist.com...)
*Religious Freedom Acts Have Never Harmed a Gay Person (http://thefederalist.com...)
*Legal Precedent Shows Religious Freedom Laws Don't Allow Discrimination (http://thefederalist.com...)

I'd also point to the opinion of Andrew Sullivan, a voice of reason on this issue (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com...)

"I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding " or anything else for that matter " if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well."

I agree with Sullivan. As a general rule, discrimination based on sexuality should be disallowed, but with particular services which are obviously geared towards heterosexuals (i.e. traditional weddings), it makes no sense to force their providers to serve homosexuals.

I think that's agreeable. The vast majority of people would agree that it is wrong to deny general service (ie. gas, groceries, general food, etc.) to gays.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 4:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 2:47:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:55:37 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM, TN05 wrote:
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

According to whom? You're not black, you're also not gay, therefore you really have no authority as to what is and is not offensive to black or gay people.

As far as I am concerned they are literally the SAME THING, exact parallel issues. Both were used to disenfranchise a minority group, and even used religion and "Freedom of Association" to justify them.

I told you never to talk to me again because of this little gem:

At 4/1/2015 11:23:28 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No the problem is you, but like all mentally handicapped people you fail to see your own ignorance because it's convenient for you to wallow in it.

Go away. Never talk to me again. How hard is that to understand?

Aww someone is still crying because they lost. You're pathetic...
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 5:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 2:47:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:55:37 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM, TN05 wrote:
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

According to whom? You're not black, you're also not gay, therefore you really have no authority as to what is and is not offensive to black or gay people.

As far as I am concerned they are literally the SAME THING, exact parallel issues. Both were used to disenfranchise a minority group, and even used religion and "Freedom of Association" to justify them.

I told you never to talk to me again because of this little gem:

At 4/1/2015 11:23:28 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No the problem is you, but like all mentally handicapped people you fail to see your own ignorance because it's convenient for you to wallow in it.

Go away. Never talk to me again. How hard is that to understand?

Apparently you can't take what you dish out. Please get off the internet if you're going to cry over every little thing someone says to you, especially when you were asking for it.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 5:27:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 4:54:38 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/7/2015 2:47:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:55:37 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM, TN05 wrote:
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

According to whom? You're not black, you're also not gay, therefore you really have no authority as to what is and is not offensive to black or gay people.

As far as I am concerned they are literally the SAME THING, exact parallel issues. Both were used to disenfranchise a minority group, and even used religion and "Freedom of Association" to justify them.

I told you never to talk to me again because of this little gem:

At 4/1/2015 11:23:28 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No the problem is you, but like all mentally handicapped people you fail to see your own ignorance because it's convenient for you to wallow in it.

Go away. Never talk to me again. How hard is that to understand?

Aww someone is still crying because they lost. You're pathetic...

To be fair though, it isn't pleasant to call people mentally handicapped when he clearly isn't...
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 5:31:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 5:03:12 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/7/2015 2:47:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:55:37 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 4/6/2015 10:03:00 AM, TN05 wrote:
Comparing this law to Jim Crow or segregation is exceedingly ignorant and exceedingly offensive to the memory of the victims of Jim Crow and segregation.

According to whom? You're not black, you're also not gay, therefore you really have no authority as to what is and is not offensive to black or gay people.

As far as I am concerned they are literally the SAME THING, exact parallel issues. Both were used to disenfranchise a minority group, and even used religion and "Freedom of Association" to justify them.

I told you never to talk to me again because of this little gem:

At 4/1/2015 11:23:28 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No the problem is you, but like all mentally handicapped people you fail to see your own ignorance because it's convenient for you to wallow in it.

Go away. Never talk to me again. How hard is that to understand?

Apparently you can't take what you dish out. Please get off the internet if you're going to cry over every little thing someone says to you, especially when you were asking for it.

Responding with unwarranted aggression is no better than crying over it.
anything your heart desires