My rights versus your rights

I, too, favor equality, dirty dog. But how do you achieve equality by restricting some and not others? Again, it's not about preserving rights for all.

And why now, when the majority of Americans (and states) are moving to end discrimination based on sexual orientation?

So once again, the Liberty Loving Right pushes to legislate morality. If, as you say, a shopkeeper is going to choose to do whatever he wants with his business regardless of the rules, then why continue create rules that polarize and threaten to persecute Americans?

You don't give a fuck about freedom. With the RWWIPES it's simply about power and control. Now that the perceived threat to your "freedom" comes from more than just black people, you've got a whole new list of groups to try and "keep down." New rules. New "rights."

Your argument -- this argument -- is ludicrous.

That said, leave it to JDIdiot to be the first on the hate train. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia ... Scan the threads in this forum. More likely than not, the most ridiculous "what if" scenarios rooted in race, ethnicity and sexual orientation begin at the University of Dipshit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Do you want some Ozombie Kool-Aid to chase down the "BID TURD" you just laid... Shit Eater?

As always, you prove my point and provide support for my position.

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.

Oh yeah ... Nice avatar, SLOBBRIN. Speaks volumes of your level of intelligence. Only ... I really feel uncomfortable that you would build your entire persona around another me. I'm not available, pork chop!

You just did an Obama. Willful ignorance...

This is not about race or sex. No one is saying that you can or should refuse to serve someone because of race. That should remain your right but no one is condoning such behavior. What we are saying is that if someone appears at YOUR business, which you built, and that person represents some philosophy that you find abhorrent then you should have the right to refuse to serve them.

You love to trot out the whole racist mythical argument (the 1950s and the democratic KKK is over) so lets use that as an example of what we really mean. A black man walks in and wants a beer (I'm getting tired of cakes and pizza). You should serve him but you should be able to refuse. You're an idiot and will lose your business probably but it is your right to be stupid. However, if a black man walks in wearing a t shirt that says "kill whitey", or even "hands up, don't shoot" you should have the right to refuse service. This isn't even about religion at this point so lets talk about that. What is Jesse Jackson rolls into town with his entourage (that's French for pack of troublemakers) and they come to your establishment and they want you to serve their crowd which is across the street protesting. Do you have the right to say, "I will serve individuals but you will not make my place your headquarters"?

By the way, in case you missed it, Starbucks is ran by a liberal moron. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I applaud you for being a conservative who at least is willing to say that they believe a business should be able to refuse service to someone for any reason (even based off of race, gender, etc.). I wish more of you would be as honest and open about it instead of trying to be evasive *cough*Pence*cough*.

That being said, the general conservative argument that I've heard for allowing all individual freedom to give / deny service (or discriminate how you want given how one reads it) is that the free market will solve any problems.

My question is this:

1) Historically, the free market was not the solution to curbing discrimination and segregation. During the 1950's, desegregation was achieved by the Federal government (and in some cases, with strong Executive action *gasp*) forcing states to desegregate. Of course, the most famous example of this is when President Eisenhower called out the army in 1957 to stop Arkansas from denying black students entry into Little Rock Central High School.

Time has shown that given the opportunity, people will discriminate for various reasons and that social pressure alone is not enough to curb it.

2) In the current case of Indiana - why is it not the free market in action? Take Memories Pizza. They came out (no pun intended) openly saying they would deny service to gays. The free market responded by boycotting and giving them negative press for their views, causing them to lose business. So isn't that how the free market is supposed to work in theory?

You just did an Obama. Willful ignorance...

This is not about race or sex. No one is saying that you can or should refuse to serve someone because of race. That should remain your right but no one is condoning such behavior. What we are saying is that if someone appears at YOUR business, which you built, and that person represents some philosophy that you find abhorrent then you should have the right to refuse to serve them.

You love to trot out the whole racist mythical argument (the 1950s and the democratic KKK is over) so lets use that as an example of what we really mean. A black man walks in and wants a beer (I'm getting tired of cakes and pizza). You should serve him but you should be able to refuse. You're an idiot and will lose your business probably but it is your right to be stupid. However, if a black man walks in wearing a t shirt that says "kill whitey", or even "hands up, don't shoot" you should have the right to refuse service. This isn't even about religion at this point so lets talk about that. What is Jesse Jackson rolls into town with his entourage (that's French for pack of troublemakers) and they come to your establishment and they want you to serve their crowd which is across the street protesting. Do you have the right to say, "I will serve individuals but you will not make my place your headquarters"?

By the way, in case you missed it, Starbucks is ran by a liberal moron. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

"Starbucks is ran by a liberal moron." Too funny. A moron demonstrating why he is a moron. Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?

So, what I take from your dodging, weaving, tap-dancing answer is that yes....you think that all business owners should be able to deny service to people based on the color of their skin? Forgive me, your answer is filled with so much bullshit that it's difficult to tell. Fuck off with the strawman arguments regarding Jesse Jackson, threatening black men with t-shirts on that scare you, etc.

A black woman and a white man walk into a diner to eat. The owner refuses service and tells them to get out because he doesn't believe in mixed race relationships.

A Hispanic couple is refused service at a gas station because the owner hates Mexicans.

A Vietnamese couple is refused service at an insurance agency because the owner hates Asians.

You're OK with all of this?

Come on brother you know why and it has nothing to do with the validity of the law, No one in the media is mentioning that the first black President (Willy boy Clinton) signed the same type of bill into Federal law. This is simply politics and the power of special interest groups in action. Personally I think this was an unnecessary law, but I am a supporter of individual rights for everyone, not just special interest and minority groups. Originally Posted by dirty dog

If it was law why fuck with it? Oh right it was to deny service to a group of people the moral majority finds offensive. Let's don't use common sense lets make a BFD out of it.l

"Starbucks is ran by a liberal moron." Too funny. A moron demonstrating why he is a moron. Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?

So, what I take from your dodging, weaving, tap-dancing answer is that yes....you think that all business owners should be able to deny service to people based on the color of their skin? Forgive me, your answer is filled with so much bullshit that it's difficult to tell. Fuck off with the strawman arguments regarding Jesse Jackson, threatening black men with t-shirts on that scare you, etc.

A black woman and a white man walk into a diner to eat. The owner refuses service and tells them to get out because he doesn't believe in mixed race relationships.

A Hispanic couple is refused service at a gas station because the owner hates Mexicans.

A Vietnamese couple is refused service at an insurance agency because the owner hates Asians.

You're OK with all of this? Originally Posted by timpage

Of course not. No one is ok with that. But in each instance the patrons can go down the street and find businesses that are happy to take their money. Businesses that discriminate like that will not last. Let them die, instead of forcing them to make money. If we have freedom, it must include the freedom to be stupid. Do you think that a business that refuses to serve minorities will only lose business from minorities? If I know about it, I won't go there. Many others won't either. It's best to let those businesses be exposed, and fail, than to force bigots to take money they don't want.

Of course not. No one is ok with that. But in each instance the patrons can go down the street and find businesses that are happy to take their money. Businesses that discriminate like that will not last. Let them die, instead of forcing them to make money. If we have freedom, it must include the freedom to be stupid. Do you think that a business that refuses to serve minorities will only lose business from minorities? If I know about it, I won't go there. Many others won't either. It's best to let those businesses be exposed, and fail, than to force bigots to take money they don't want. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why didn't that system work for 100 years after the Civil War? And, how on earth do you explain that to a six year old black kid who can't buy an ice cream cone because the owner of the ice cream store is a knuckle-dragging racist?

You're talking like a white man who has never experienced one moment of bigotry in his life. Think about that.

The culture is much different now. Do you really think that 19th Century solutions are effective for 21st Century issues? Why do you want everyone to conform to your idea of morality?

The culture is much different now. Do you really think that 19th Century solutions are effective for 21st Century issues? Why do you want everyone to conform to your idea of morality? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're the one proposing 19th century solutions for 21st century problems unless I am missing something.

You want to turn the clock back to a time when discrimination based on bigotry was legal, acceptable and, in most places in our country, the norm. I'm glad your convinced that the culture is different now, people have changed and things would be different. I'm not....and one quick swim through the posts on this board establishes beyond any doubt that my skepticism is warranted.

The culture is much different now. Do you really think that 19th Century solutions are effective for 21st Century issues? Why do you want everyone to conform to your idea of morality? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

By the way, I don't want everyone to conform to my idea of morality. But, what we should all expect is that gays, blacks, whites, Hispanics, pacific islanders, etc. all deserve, and have an inherent right, to be treated fairly and most importantly, equally. And history has shown that human beings, left to their own impulses, generally have a problem with that concept in the absence of the rule of law.

Why is this such a tough call? Why don't your sympathies lie with the folks who are being treated badly rather than those trying to justify that treatment by calling it religion? I have asked this before and nobody answers me....what sort of religion is it that encourages its adherents to discriminate against people based on who those people love? Why would we want to sanction and encourage behavior based on intolerance, condemnation and hatred? Whether it's just because you hate fags or whether it's based on some alleged bogus religious principle. Man, it's the same line of reasoning that the middle eastern psychos rely on when they saw off Christian heads....."my religious beliefs require it." Bullshit.

Let me know your outrage in my thread about Muslim bakeries.

I applaud you for being a conservative who at least is willing to say that they believe a business should be able to refuse service to someone for any reason (even based off of race, gender, etc.). I wish more of you would be as honest and open about it instead of trying to be evasive *cough*Pence*cough*.

That being said, the general conservative argument that I've heard for allowing all individual freedom to give / deny service (or discriminate how you want given how one reads it) is that the free market will solve any problems.

My question is this:

1) Historically, the free market was not the solution to curbing discrimination and segregation. During the 1950's, desegregation was achieved by the Federal government (and in some cases, with strong Executive action *gasp*) forcing states to desegregate. Of course, the most famous example of this is when President Eisenhower called out the army in 1957 to stop Arkansas from denying black students entry into Little Rock Central High School. A public school has nothing to do with the free market.

Time has shown that given the opportunity, people will discriminate for various reasons and that social pressure alone is not enough to curb it. Discrimination is not a dirty word, we do it all the time when we chose one thing over another.

2) In the current case of Indiana - why is it not the free market in action? Take Memories Pizza. They came out (no pun intended) openly saying they would deny service to gays. The free market responded by boycotting and giving them negative press for their views, causing them to lose business. So isn't that how the free market is supposed to work in theory? Originally Posted by jbravo_123

You are not telling the truth. They said that they would not cater a gay wedding but they did not say that they would deny service to gay people. Huge difference! The free market example only works when the truth is told otherwise it is mob rule based on heresay, lies, and innuendo. You also forgot to mention, after your lie, that a GoFundMe page was started and the free market responded with a lot of money.

I also never said that I agreed or supported (except in theory) business owners denying service to anyone for stupid reasons. But being stupid should not be against the law. For a business owner it is incredibly stupid to deny anyone service for any reason but there has to be protection for a business owner to chose where he or she will draw the line. Otherwise you created a new class of slavery.

Let me try a illustration again from television from whence all things good come from (for some people). There was a show called Murphy Brown a few years back. The anchor on the show was called Jim Diel (Dial) (?) and he opened an upscale bar in Washington DC as an investment. It turned out to be a great success. One of his co-workers noticed that there were few to no women in his bar. All men! It had become a "gay bar". Had he seen this coming I have no doubt that the owner (a conservative) would not have denied service to a single gay man or a pair of gay men. That would not be good for business but if he had found that large groups of gay men were actively using his bar as a meeting place then he may have had a problem. As the show put it though, the conservative (Murphy Brown was kind of a fantasy show) news anchor sold his "gay bar" for great profit to a gay couple. I hope this clears things up. Hollywood did it's best.

Let me know your outrage in my thread about Muslim bakeries. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How about answering my legitimate questions rather than creating bunny trails that lead nowhere and are designed to divert attention from the real issue?

You know, it occurs to me that if the left has their way and forces businesses, under threat of criminal and civil litigation, to provide services for same sex marriages that they do not agree with, there is still a remedy available to those business owners.

How about a photographer who is required to take photos for a same sex marriage who conveniently forgets to take the lens cap off? Oops.

How about a baker who is required to bake a wedding cake accidentally confusing the salt with the sugar. Oops.

How about a caterer who is required to cater a same sex wedding who confuses the Chicken Ala King they were supposed to make with Tuna Helper? Oops.

Gays might be able to force Christians to serve them, but they might want to keep in mind that they still have no control over the quality or professionalism of that service.

Maybe the better solution is to live and let live, allow businesses to respectfully decline business that is against their beliefs without fear of litigation or backlash, and in doing so have peace of mind that those business owners that they DO hire will provide the best possible quality of service to them.