America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by Brewha. 136 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
Love and tolerance wins.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
victor809 Offline
#51 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 2:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
You love twisting things just to stir the pot.

The rights of people that believe in traditional marriage where lessened when the LGBT community was able to convince the guberment to redefine the definition of marriage. They where told it doesn't matter what your belief is, you have to accept this now, and make them cake. Instead the guberment should have recognized the Civil Union in the same way it does with common-law marriage. As I said before, in the end it all has to do with the money and benefits. I personally don't care who a person wants to be with or openly express in public. Have a relationship with your neighbor's dog - If it makes you happy I don't care. But IMHO redefining marriage to recognize a gay union is like Rachel Dolezal saying she identifies as black.


How did your definition of marriage change? You can define marriage however you want. That right has not changed at all.

Feel free to say marriage is only defined as between you and mila jovovich. That's your right and that right has in no way been diminished.
banderl Offline
#52 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 2:33 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
jetblasted wrote:
I met Admiral Stockdale's granddaughter a few months ago & I told her how much I admired him. She teared-up & thanked me, then she recalled how he was relentlessly mocked when his hearing aid fell out. Words still hurt her, 25 years after the fact.



What?
Brewha Online
#53 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 3:01 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
cacman wrote:
You love twisting things just to stir the pot.

The rights of people that believe in traditional marriage where lessened when the LGBT community was able to convince the guberment to redefine the definition of marriage. They where told it doesn't matter what your belief is, you have to accept this now, and make them cake. Instead the guberment should have recognized the Civil Union in the same way it does with common-law marriage. As I said before, in the end it all has to do with the money and benefits. I personally don't care who a person wants to be with or openly express in public. Have a relationship with your neighbor's dog - If it makes you happy I don't care. But IMHO redefining marriage to recognize a gay union is like Rachel Dolezal saying she identifies as black.

Sorry cac, my rights as a married man were not lessened.

I know what my marriage means to me and it is irreverent what other do, think, believe....

You should try New Prescription Strength Apathy OTC.
4 out of 5 homeless people get a kick out of it!
danmdevries Offline
#54 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 3:04 PM EST
Joined: 02-11-2014
Posts: 17,392
Brewha wrote:
Sorry cac, my rights as a married man were not lessened.

I know what my marriage means to me and it is irreverent what other do, think, believe....

You should try New Prescription Strength Apathy OTC.
4 out of 5 homeless people get a kick out of it!


Nah, it's called *****ital... Life changer for me.
bgz Offline
#55 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 3:08 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
danmdevries wrote:
Nah, it's called *****ital... Life changer for me.


I believe that's the generic name, it's cheaper.
danmdevries Offline
#56 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 3:23 PM EST
Joined: 02-11-2014
Posts: 17,392
*****ital 2 Tab PO BID PRN / giving a chit.
cacman Offline
#57 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 3:24 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Brewha wrote:
Sorry cac, my rights as a married man were not lessened.

I know what my marriage means to me and it is irreverent what other do, think, believe....

You should try New Prescription Strength Apathy OTC.
4 out of 5 homeless people get a kick out of it!

No need to apologize. For some they do believe there rights where lessened. Take the Cake incident for example. That woman practically lost her business because she was standing for what she felt where her rights. Redefining marriage brought religion into the mix. Allowing a Civil Union may have kept the religious aspect out of it for many.

I know what my marriage means to me too and it is irreverent what others do, think, believe.... I'm only pointing out how others may feel to some degree. I filed as a common-law marriage for years before actually filing for a marriage license. Why do you even need a license to get married anyway? To me that's a bigger question.

If it makes you happy do it.
rfenst Offline
#58 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 3:35 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
cacman wrote:
Allowing a Civil Union may have kept the religious aspect out of it for many.



Too late for that. The Right fought so hard against gays that when the issue of marriage rights finally came to be heard by the Court civil union was never acceptable to those in gay rights. Failure to allow even civil unions helped the gay rights cause.

As to religion aspect of it being kept out of this, it is way too late for that too. Different religions and denominations accepted and permitted gay unions as long as ten years ago.

The issues that divide and unite us about this will never go away. They will just be forgotten when newer major issues arise.

Personally, I am happy with their new right to marry, but understand rational people who disagree with me.
JadeRose Offline
#59 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 3:44 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
[quote=cacmanTake the Cake incident for example. That woman practically lost her business because she was standing for what she felt where her rights.

If it makes you happy do it.[/quote]





It IS her right to stand up for her beliefs. Still is. She is NOT...nor is anyone else....free to be excluded from the legal consequences of her actions. She said no...the market responded. I'm not talking about death threats, vandalism, etc. I'm talking about loss of business or criticism. Such is life.
Kawak Offline
#60 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 3:59 PM EST
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025
I say the more gay marriage the better as 99% are liberal dems and they can't pro create naturally without frog DNA. The key fight is adoption and sperm donation! ;)
Gene363 Offline
#61 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 4:31 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
Kawak wrote:
I say the more gay marriage the better as 99% are liberal dems and they can't pro create naturally without frog DNA. The key fight is adoption and sperm donation! ;)


True, suppression cause them to marry and procreate.
cacman Offline
#62 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 4:39 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
rfenst wrote:
Too late for that. The Right fought so hard against gays that when the issue of marriage rights finally came to be heard by the Court civil union was never acceptable to those in gay rights. Failure to allow even civil unions helped the gay rights cause.

This is where the guberment failed from the beginning. It should have been allowed then.

rfenst wrote:
As to religion aspect of it being kept out of this, it is way too late for that too. Different religions and denominations accepted and permitted gay unions as long as ten years ago.

Understood, but there are different religions and denominations that do not accept it. I am not religious, but understand it. Got married to make my wife happy, and she is more religious but a supporter. The benefits of common-law marriage are the same as legally getting married, and I like keeping the guberment out of things. I don't need a piece of paper to validate it. Some do.

rfenst wrote:
The issues that divide and unite us about this will never go away. They will just be forgotten when newer major issues arise.

Personally, I am happy with their new right to marry, but understand rational people who disagree with me.

Agreed.
cacman Offline
#63 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 5:38 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Interesting interpretations of what this law means are already starting to appear:

SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity
http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate
rfenst Offline
#64 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 6:18 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
cacman wrote:
Interesting interpretations of what this law means are already starting to appear:

SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity
http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate


LOL. Good luck with that argument. SCOTUS would have to hammer a big square peg into a small round hole to define “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” to include conceal and carry permits.
tailgater Offline
#65 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 7:19 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
rfenst wrote:
Too late for that. The Right fought so hard against gays that when the issue of marriage rights finally came to be heard by the Court civil union was never acceptable to those in gay rights. Failure to allow even civil unions helped the gay rights cause.

.


This was a sticking point for a long time.
I've been in favor of legal unions for same sex couples probably forever. It never bothered me. Call it marriage or a civil union, who cares?
Right?

But here in Massachusetts, where the original Civil Union was carved out, I found it appalling when the gay community rejected the unions. Not because they fell short on some rights, but because it wasn't called "marriage".

This was clearly a case of the left force-fitting what they wanted, without regard to reason.

Truth be told, I'm glad the Court handed out this decision, and I hope we can put this issue behind us.
But BOTH sides are guilty here. Although you won't hear that in the media streams or among the intellectual lefties.

tailgater Offline
#66 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 7:20 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Kawak wrote:
I say the more gay marriage the better as 99% are liberal dems and they can't pro create naturally without frog DNA. The key fight is adoption and sperm donation! ;)


Chaos theory suggests that they'll procreate even without the frog DNA.
I guess they'll basically just f*ck themselves...
jetblasted Offline
#67 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 7:21 PM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
^ DING DING DING ^
frankj1 Offline
#68 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 7:29 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Kawak wrote:
I say the more gay marriage the better as 99% are liberal dems and they can't pro create naturally without frog DNA. The key fight is adoption and sperm donation! ;)

Two words:

Log Cabin

any one with wealth (lots of gays in that mix) has his/her ear open to any candidate with goals of preserving personal wealth.

Sorry pal, you have been voting Gay for years.
MACS Offline
#69 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 7:30 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
I saw a satirical cartoon... the rebel flag was being lowered and the rainbow flag was being raised.
jetblasted Offline
#70 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 7:44 PM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
frankj1 wrote:
Two words:

Log Cabin

any one with wealth (lots of gays in that mix) has his/her ear open to any candidate with goals of preserving personal wealth.

Sorry pal, you have been voting Gay for years.


Doesn't Harry Reid live in the Ritz Carlton ?
frankj1 Offline
#71 Posted: Fri, Jun 26 2015, 11:31 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
jetblasted wrote:
Doesn't Harry Reid live in the Ritz Carlton ?

well, you got me there. just making a point about how all kinds of folks vote due to self interest rather than stuff like sexual orientation alone.

It's already too easy to sum up groups (like "southerners" as you certainly know) in such simplistic terms. I'm thinking gays are not automatically commies.
cacman Offline
#72 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 12:35 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
rfenst wrote:
LOL. Good luck with that argument. SCOTUS would have to hammer a big square peg into a small round hole to define “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” to include conceal and carry permits.

Only offered as a friendly retort to your statement:
The issues that divide and unite us about this will never go away. They will just be forgotten when newer major issues arise.
cacman Offline
#73 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 3:53 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
JadeRose wrote:
It IS her right to stand up for her beliefs. Still is. She is NOT...nor is anyone else....free to be excluded from the legal consequences of her actions. She said no...the market responded. I'm not talking about death threats, vandalism, etc. I'm talking about loss of business or criticism. Such is life.

As far as I'm concerned, it is a private business owners' right to refuse service to anyone for what ever reason they seem fit and without explanation. That's why it's called a 'private business'. No one should be forced to do business with another. A bakery owned by a Christian family that does not condone gay unions should not be forced to do business beyond their beliefs. Nor should they be ridiculed, personally threatened, vandalized, and forced out of their business for what they believe. That's their right regardless of 'market'. What ever happened to the separation of church and State (guberment)??

In the same note, a religious institution should not be forced to perform services for a union they do not support. If a gay couple chooses to engage in a civil union, they should choose a church, bakery, florist, and doughnut maker that also supports their belief as opposed to forcing someone else to contort and forgo their own beliefs. It's like asking a Buddhist monk to perform a Christian ceremony. It doesn't fit.
JadeRose Offline
#74 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 6:55 AM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
cacman wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, it is a private business owners' right to refuse service to anyone for what ever reason they seem fit and without explanation. That's why it's called a 'private business'. No one should be forced to do business with another. A bakery owned by a Christian family that does not condone gay unions should not be forced to do business beyond their beliefs. Nor should they be ridiculed, personally threatened, vandalized, and forced out of their business for what they believe. That's their right regardless of 'market'. What ever happened to the separation of church and State (guberment)??

In the same note, a religious institution should not be forced to perform services for a union they do not support. If a gay couple chooses to engage in a civil union, they should choose a church, bakery, florist, and doughnut maker that also supports their belief as opposed to forcing someone else to contort and forgo their own beliefs. It's like asking a Buddhist monk to perform a Christian ceremony. It doesn't fit.





and I don't disagree with a single thing you said. But a business refusing service to a group is NOT free of legal consequences of their actions. I, IN NO WAY, support illegal activities such as harassment, threats,vandalism, etc., but I ABSOLUTELY support the market deciding whether that bakery continues to survive based on that owner's publicly stated beliefs. That is a TRUE FREE MARKET.

Would you shop at a store run by the Westboro idiots? I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't and I would discourage others from doing so either. Not by threats or vandalism but by speaking out and publicly boycotting them. There may be some that would and that is their right.


Once again....we ABSOLUTELY have the right to free speech and the right to believe whatever we wish in this country. We DO NOT have the right to be of any consequences of that speech or those beliefs. I use the Westboro sh itheels as an extreme example and I despise them as do most BUT, in a weird way, I 100% support their right to do what they do and spew what they spew. They are almost like the canary in the coal mine. If we shut them down using the legal system, then we are on a slippery slope.
teedubbya Offline
#75 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 7:42 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I think the westboro folks are largely misunderstood. They are only trying to celebrate and preserve our heritage.
Gene363 Offline
#76 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 9:44 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820

So when will the guy asking muslim bakeries to bake a gay cake and filming their response, a polite, "No thank you, go to Kroger for that." be asking for a rebel pride cake?
Brewha Online
#77 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 9:53 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
teedubbya wrote:
I think the westboro folks are largely misunderstood. They are only trying to celebrate and preserve our heritage.

And stamp out the evil and wicked. Which is most of us.....

Religion can be an overwhelming responsibility.
cacman Offline
#78 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 10:57 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
JadeRose wrote:
and I don't disagree with a single thing you said. But a business refusing service to a group is NOT free of legal consequences of their actions. I, IN NO WAY, support illegal activities such as harassment, threats,vandalism, etc., but I ABSOLUTELY support the market deciding whether that bakery continues to survive based on that owner's publicly stated beliefs. That is a TRUE FREE MARKET.

Would you shop at a store run by the Westboro idiots? I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't and I would discourage others from doing so either. Not by threats or vandalism but by speaking out and publicly boycotting them. There may be some that would and that is their right.


Once again....we ABSOLUTELY have the right to free speech and the right to believe whatever we wish in this country. We DO NOT have the right to be of any consequences of that speech or those beliefs. I use the Westboro sh itheels as an extreme example and I despise them as do most BUT, in a weird way, I 100% support their right to do what they do and spew what they spew. They are almost like the canary in the coal mine. If we shut them down using the legal system, then we are on a slippery slope.

But what we saw with the Cake incident was not simply 'free market'!!! Nor should that be an example of how a truly 'free market' should run. I would not shop at a store run by Westboro, nor do I support Westboro's beliefs. But as Americans they have the right to run whatever business they choose and without harassment, threats, vandalism, etc. Plain and simple it's a form of discrimination.

You don't see any gay union asking Westboro to serve them do you? No. Because it won't gain them any political clout in pushing their agenda.
teedubbya Offline
#79 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Do you think God hates ****?
Brewha Online
#80 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 12:40 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
teedubbya wrote:
Do you think God hates ****?

That would be ridiculous.
Gene363 Offline
#81 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 12:49 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
Brewha wrote:
That would be ridiculous.


True, Gods hates sin and love the sinner.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#82 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 12:51 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
why would God hate asterisks?
Brewha Online
#83 Posted: Sat, Jun 27 2015, 1:14 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
opelmanta1900 wrote:
why would God hate asterisks?

That's my point.
God does not hate ascii characters.
You got it.
Kawak Offline
#84 Posted: Mon, Jun 29 2015, 5:47 PM EST
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025
Will KY Jelly be covered under Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser and the others? Is that a question for Sandra Fluke?
tonygraz Offline
#85 Posted: Mon, Jun 29 2015, 9:20 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Not for Catholic organizations, unless it's for a priest.
dstieger Offline
#86 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 7:52 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
teedubbya wrote:
Personally I think marriage should be completely removed from the government that has no place in there Instead place marriage squarely in the church who can decide who they want to marry or not That has not changed no matter how much someone here might want to pervert what the ruling means Instead of saying that the gays and only have civil unions in the eyes of the government and the nine days have marriage have everybody have civil unions in the eyes of the government if you're really going to still supply benefits tax benefits or anything like that based on what are now called civil unions

If it's all about God and get it completely out of the government and let it sit in the churches meanwhile the government has the more sterile term to work with for everyone However the nine days didn't really want a solution they just wanted to treat the gays differently


My sentiments exactly.....well except for the nine days part.

In fact I typed the same thing on one of the other gay threads yesterday.

Why is nobody discussing this point????? We create stupid controversy because of the acceptance of the flawed (IMO) premise that government should have any say at all in questions of marriage.


Gene363 Offline
#87 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 10:14 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
dstieger wrote:
My sentiments exactly.....well except for the nine days part.

In fact I typed the same thing on one of the other gay threads yesterday.

Why is nobody discussing this point????? We create stupid controversy because of the acceptance of the flawed (IMO) premise that government should have any say at all in questions of marriage.




That discussion is suppressed because it is libertarian and threatens the spell that the democrats and republicans have on the American voter.

I like to say, I don't want the government defining marriage, leave that up to churches or the participants. I really see no reason*, other than to collect taxes or in the past enforce racial standards, for any government entity to issue marriage licenses. It will complicate divorce, but we have plenty of lawyers to sort that out.

* In past times when women's rights were limited, a government sanctioned marriage may have offered some protection for a potential wife.
dstieger Offline
#88 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 10:35 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Dunno about collecting taxes being a motivation for the govt to be involved....but, could be, I suppose. I thought it was a case of big government offering tax incentives to create a nation of 'traditional families' because our 'leaders' believe that with those tax incentives, we'll create a nation of one man/one woman families united for life and our country will forever be better off than any possible alternative. It's as though Dr. Dobson and co. hijacked the country with what was probably a sly addition to the tax code: "married filing jointly deduction"
cacman Offline
#89 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 10:42 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Just waiting for the first celebrity gay divorce. It will end-up being a reality TV show with a cameo by Caitlyn.
teedubbya Offline
#90 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 10:43 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Waiting for the first?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#91 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 11:10 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
cacman wrote:
You love twisting things just to stir the pot.

The rights of people that believe in traditional marriage where lessened when the LGBT community was able to convince the guberment to redefine the definition of marriage. They where told it doesn't matter what your belief is, you have to accept this now, and make them cake. Instead the guberment should have recognized the Civil Union in the same way it does with common-law marriage. As I said before, in the end it all has to do with the money and benefits. I personally don't care who a person wants to be with or openly express in public. Have a relationship with your neighbor's dog - If it makes you happy I don't care. But IMHO redefining marriage to recognize a gay union is like Rachel Dolezal saying she identifies as black.



She's not?

WTF!!!!
victor809 Offline
#92 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 11:59 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
But what we saw with the Cake incident was not simply 'free market'!!! Nor should that be an example of how a truly 'free market' should run. I would not shop at a store run by Westboro, nor do I support Westboro's beliefs. But as Americans they have the right to run whatever business they choose and without harassment, threats, vandalism, etc. Plain and simple it's a form of discrimination.

You don't see any gay union asking Westboro to serve them do you? No. Because it won't gain them any political clout in pushing their agenda.


Um... what about the "cake incident" isn't free market? She expressed her views, her views became public (perhaps more public than she wanted) and people who disagreed with those views told people not to use her business....

This is different than you not buying cake from Westboro Baptist Bakers how? Just because they want to be vehemently public about their views?

Free market is free market. If someone wants to be a hateful jag-off, the customer has every right to inform their friends, family, distant cousins etc.

I've said it before, I'd have no problem with any business discriminating against any group of people. I do think they should be require to declare their discrimination up-front however, to avoid any potential customer conflict and waste of time. Put a "no gays allowed" sign on the door, on the website. Let me know not to spend my money on your business and I'm okay with it. Put a confederate flag and a "no blacks allowed" sign up... then there's no chance that people who don't share your beliefs will accidentally give you business.
Speyside Offline
#93 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 12:08 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Our constitution does not define or mention marriage. Define it any way you want, but don't think your definition has legal meaning.

Also, the cake lady made a conscious choice. So did the individuals who chose to no longer do business with her as is their right.
Gene363 Offline
#94 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 2:00 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
victor809 wrote:
Um... what about the "cake incident" isn't free market? She expressed her views, her views became public (perhaps more public than she wanted) and people who disagreed with those views told people not to use her business....

This is different than you not buying cake from Westboro Baptist Bakers how? Just because they want to be vehemently public about their views?

Free market is free market. If someone wants to be a hateful jag-off, the customer has every right to inform their friends, family, distant cousins etc.

I've said it before, I'd have no problem with any business discriminating against any group of people. I do think they should be require to declare their discrimination up-front however, to avoid any potential customer conflict and waste of time. Put a "no gays allowed" sign on the door, on the website. Let me know not to spend my money on your business and I'm okay with it. Put a confederate flag and a "no blacks allowed" sign up... then there's no chance that people who don't share your beliefs will accidentally give you business.


If only that was true...

Quote:

Oregon bakery fined $135,000 for refusing to make gay couple's cake


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0428/Oregon-bakery-fined-135-000-for-refusing-to-make-gay-couple-s-cake
victor809 Offline
#95 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 2:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
If only that was true...



http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0428/Oregon-bakery-fined-135-000-for-refusing-to-make-gay-couple-s-cake


I don't necessarily agree with this law, but it's an Oregon state law they violated. I thought everyone was pro-states rights?
Gene363 Offline
#96 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 2:30 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
victor809 wrote:
I don't necessarily agree with this law, but it's an Oregon state law they violated. I thought everyone was pro-states rights?



Weak answer, but if corporations are treated as people then a business should have 'civil rights' that are federally protected. Beer
victor809 Offline
#97 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 2:43 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
Weak answer, but if corporations are treated as people then a business should have 'civil rights' that are federally protected. Beer


It's an interesting and very tricky situation. If you want to discuss this business's civil rights and ability to choose their clientele, it's hard to separate the "business" as an individual and how that is separate from the business owner or CEO who is actually making the decisions.

Regardless, while I think business owners should be allowed to discriminate however they want, most people don't agree with me and get upset when businesses put "no blacks allowed" or "no christians" signs on the door. To me that just serves to let me know what the business's opinion is, and allows me to better choose where to spend my money (or not). Since most people don't agree with me, they chose to enact a state law. I also believe in businesses following the law.

Keep in mind, I don't actually believe that a business owner's civil rights are in any way impinged by forcing them to serve a client. I believe their civil rights are impinged by government limiting what they can do (ie, no smoking, or no serving fois gras). Forcing them to actually accept all clients isn't really impinging on their rights. I just prefer to know who the jag-offs are, rather than have them smile and take my money.
DrafterX Offline
#98 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 3:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Think
does the business have the right to charge whatever they see fit for the occasion..?? Huh
JadeRose Offline
#99 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 3:20 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
victor809 wrote:
It's an interesting and very tricky situation. If you want to discuss this business's civil rights and ability to choose their clientele, it's hard to separate the "business" as an individual and how that is separate from the business owner or CEO who is actually making the decisions.

Regardless, while I think business owners should be allowed to discriminate however they want, most people don't agree with me and get upset when businesses put "no blacks allowed" or "no christians" signs on the door. To me that just serves to let me know what the business's opinion is, and allows me to better choose where to spend my money (or not). Since most people don't agree with me, they chose to enact a state law. I also believe in businesses following the law.

Keep in mind, I don't actually believe that a business owner's civil rights are in any way impinged by forcing them to serve a client. I believe their civil rights are impinged by government limiting what they can do (ie, no smoking, or no serving fois gras). Forcing them to actually accept all clients isn't really impinging on their rights. I just prefer to know who the jag-offs are, rather than have them smile and take my money.





I had a friend tell me years ago that he would rather a man call him ni gger to his face than smile at him and think it. Made me think.
DrafterX Offline
#100 Posted: Tue, Jun 30 2015, 3:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
JadeRose wrote:
I had a friend tell me years ago that he would rather a man call him ni gger to his face than smile at him and think it. Made me think.



did you call him a ni gger..?? Huh
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
Back to Top