My rights versus your rights

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. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Your lucky that being stupid isn't against the law......

Although the reality is that being stupid leads stupid people to do shit that is against the law all the time...so, your argument has holes in it the same size as the one in your head.

"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

Are you being Obama too? What I said (write this down somewhere) is that business owners should have the right but I do not think it is a good idea. The idea of a right goes a long ways beyond what we do everyday. A right may never be used but it's protection is there just in case. As a liberal of a certain number of years (yes, I said that you are a liberal) you have to remember what liberals said in the 1960s, "I don't support what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it.". You all don't believe that anymore and probably didn't then. It just made you sound like you were morally superior. It was also about speech which is easy. So go back and revise the liberal credo, "I don't support what you are doing but I will defend with my life your right to do it."

A more modern (but not too modern) liberal credo is that only the distasteful rights have to be protected. This was said to defend the march of Nazis in Illinois and the establishment of gay bars in residential areas.

So which other rights are you against Timmietard?

As for above, I noticed you snirked but how no response.

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. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Man! Sins beat me to it. I wanted to make the point of do you really want to force someone to make your food, cake, drink, clothes, or whatever by force. Revenge comes in different forms.

I thought I'd tag this onto here as well. Someone brought up the free market without fully understanding what that means. If there is a demand for a bakery to make "gay" desserts then someone will open one and have a monopoly on the "gay" money in town. That's your free market and if they are smart, they will also bake cakes for STRAIGHT, bi, and transgender people. GO! Free Market!

I have one more thing to add about this. Do you, Timmietard, disagree with a provider deciding not to take appointments with black men, very young men, certain men with a reputation, or someone they suspect of being dangerous?

A moron demonstrating why he is a moron. Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? Originally Posted by timpage

I mean, technically, he was right. People rarely ask that question.

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

It should be run, Professor JD.

I have one more thing to add about this. Do you, Timmietard, disagree with a provider deciding not to take appointments with black men, very young men, certain men with a reputation, or someone they suspect of being dangerous? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Only you would equate baking cakes with sex. These things have inherent differences that, as usual, make your attempted analogy utterly ridiculous.

I'm thinkin' that a girl gets to fuck who she wants to fuck.....

That! That is the best that you can do? A typo! We should come up with a new word to describe the sincere angst felt by someone who is injured by a typo. If I was a lawyer or a congressman (men?) then a typo is important. Okay, maybe a doctor.... but I am not any of those. How about a cogent argument next time you put your fingers on a keyboard.


Bang! Now I'v hit one over Timmietard's head.

That! That is the best that you can do? A typo! We should come up with a new word to describe the sincere angst felt by someone who is injured by a typo. If I was a lawyer or a congressman (men?) then a typo is important. Okay, maybe a doctor.... but I am not any of those. How about a cogent argument next time you put your fingers on a keyboard. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A typo is a typing error. This one, on the other hand, is actually more proof that you never attended school past the third grade.
It just happened to catch my eye. As usual, I didn't read the rest of the bile/vomit that you posted. I didn't want to waste the 20 seconds.

That! That is the best that you can do? A typo! We should come up with a new word to describe the sincere angst felt by someone who is injured by a typo. If I was a lawyer or a congressman (men?) then a typo is important. Okay, maybe a doctor.... but I am not any of those. How about a cogent argument next time you put your fingers on a keyboard.


Bang! Now I'v hit one over Timmietard's head. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Uh huh....you keep telling yourself how clever you are admiral. Nobody else will.

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. Originally Posted by timpage

It is sad that you do not believe the same free market that produced the greatest economy in the history of the world can't be trusted to produce fair outcomes for all the citizens of this great country.

Only you would equate baking cakes with sex. These things have inherent differences that, as usual, make your attempted analogy utterly ridiculous.

I'm thinkin' that a girl gets to fuck who she wants to fuck..... Originally Posted by timpage

If she is a commercial sex provider in Nevada, where it is legal, I believe under this theory of the law, she fucks anyone who walks in or faces the consequences - which include the shame of racism if applicable, and the public approbation thereto attached.

I mean, technically, he was right. People rarely ask that question. Originally Posted by shanm

Ironic but true - LOL

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. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Excellent - this is the remedy of Henry David Thoreau or slaves spitting in the master's drinks. It is the natural right of man to oppose absurdity and tyranny, if only symbolically.

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

Clearly, you have it backwards. The people saying everyone should be forced to serve gays are doing the legislating of morality.
Congratulations - you are nearing 24,000 posts.