U.S. Supreme Court rules same sex marriages legal.

The state should not, either by law or breacratic action, get involved in these personal transactions. Obviously that is not the situation we have today. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

Then the States should never have the sodomy laws to begin with....

But laws can be changed and in this case they should be. The entire civil rights movement was based on civil disobedience, and Supreme Court rulings have been overturned 220 times, and many more of their rulings have been overruled by legislative actions and Constitutional amendments. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

"Overturned 220 times, and many more....have been overruled...." Really? Your citation, please...?

In case you are unable to come up with one, here is mine....

http://www.howstuffworks.com/10-over...ourt-cases.htm

As long as a person's beliefs do not result in physical harm to others, they should be allowed to act in accordance with those beliefs, no matter how despicable they are to others. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

The sad reality is that some beliefs always do result in physical harm to others, and those beliefs are still allowed as the right of free speech by the Constitution.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ince_1995.html


http://forward.com/news/breaking-new...mist-killings/

Being more inclusive is accepting that people will have these despicable beliefs. You can wish that they didn't. You can try to convince them not to. You can not buy their products. You can write editorials about how wrong their beliefs are. You can organize boycotts of their business. But the government should not take actions that force them to do business with you if they choose not to. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

Unfortunately, these three fine young men found it out the hard way.

"Overturned 220 times, and many more....have been overruled...." Really? Your citation, please...?

In case you are unable to come up with one, here is mine....

http://www.howstuffworks.com/10-over...ourt-cases.htm Originally Posted by andymarksman

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CON...AN-2002-12.pdf

The sad reality is that some beliefs always do result in physical harm to others, and those beliefs are still allowed as the right of free speech by the Constitution.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ince_1995.html


http://forward.com/news/breaking-new...mist-killings/ Originally Posted by andymarksman

Exactly what part of "AS LONG AS A PERSON'S BELIEFS DO NOT RESULT IN PHYSICAL HARM TO OTHERS" don't you understand?

Unfortunately, these three fine young men found it out the hard way. Originally Posted by andymarksman

A great article about an especially tragic event. Not quite on the same level of refusing to bake a cake or take some photographs.

A great article about an especially tragic event. Not quite on the same level of refusing to bake a cake or take some photographs. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

What about refusing a bank loan to a black person based solely on the color of his skin... or refusal to hire him for a job based on his color... or be accepted at a University.... Use a different bathroom... Drink from a different water fountain...Ride on the back of a bus... Assuming these are all private businesses, Is that kind of non physical harm acceptable to you on a "free and diverse" (to quote you) society?

What about refusing a bank loan to a black person based solely on the color of his skin... or refusal to hire him for a job based on his color... or be accepted at a University.... Use a different bathroom... Drink from a different water fountain...Ride on the back of a bus... Assuming these are all private businesses, Is that kind of non physical harm acceptable to you on a "free and diverse" (to quote you) society? Originally Posted by Luke Skywalker

Believe it or not, there are whites who were denied entrance to universities because the university decided to admit lesser qualified blacks. Whites were denied jobs so that lesser qualified blacks could be hired. I suspect you have no problem with that kind of discrimination.

From Richard Epstein:

"Normatively, the correct rule is that freedom of association is a generalizable value that holds in all competitive markets; the effort to apply the antidiscrimination laws in that domain is a giant form of overreach, no matter whether the lines of difference are race, religion, or sexual orientation. This position applies a fortiori (with greater reason or force) to those persons who reject a request for services on bona fide religious grounds, but it is not limited to them. This position also applies to all sorts of services, not some subclass like photography that may just be given preferred First Amendment status on freedom of speech grounds. There is virtually zero risk of systematic exclusion when competitive substitutes are available, so that using the broad freedom of association principle produces few error costs. If most organizations regard these distinctions as abhorrent, it is all the more important to allow those who differ to go their separate ways. Customers have lots of options to choose from, while the practitioners of certain beliefs have few choices of their own if forced to engage in practices that they find offensive to their religious beliefs in order to stay in business."

Believe it or not, there are whites who were denied entrance to universities because the university decided to admit lesser qualified blacks. Whites were denied jobs so that lesser qualified blacks could be hired. I suspect you have no problem with that kind of discrimination.

From Richard Epstein:

"Normatively, the correct rule is that freedom of association is a generalizable value that holds in all competitive markets; the effort to apply the antidiscrimination laws in that domain is a giant form of overreach, no matter whether the lines of difference are race, religion, or sexual orientation. This position applies a fortiori (with greater reason or force) to those persons who reject a request for services on bona fide religious grounds, but it is not limited to them. This position also applies to all sorts of services, not some subclass like photography that may just be given preferred First Amendment status on freedom of speech grounds. There is virtually zero risk of systematic exclusion when competitive substitutes are available, so that using the broad freedom of association principle produces few error costs. If most organizations regard these distinctions as abhorrent, it is all the more important to allow those who differ to go their separate ways. Customers have lots of options to choose from, while the practitioners of certain beliefs have few choices of their own if forced to engage in practices that they find offensive to their religious beliefs in order to stay in business."
Originally Posted by Wheretonow

I asked you a direct question, a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice. Instead, you replied with another question and a citation by a lawyer. I asked your opinion, not Epstein's opinion.

I'm not as rude as you, so I'll answer your question. I have a problem with all kinds of discrimination. Are you trying to change the subject to Affirmative Action? Quotas? That is not what the discussion is, plus I also believe quotas is a form of discrimination and I don't approve of it either. The discussion is refusal of service based on discrimination.

But in your defensive reply, I take your non-answer as a "yes" to my question....you have no problem with blacks being denied jobs, university acceptance, loans, riding in the back of buses, using different bathrooms, based solely on the color of their skin (emphasis added). Replace "blacks" with "Gays", "Jewish", "Muslim", "Women", where you want...

Exactly what part of "AS LONG AS A PERSON'S BELIEFS DO NOT RESULT IN PHYSICAL HARM TO OTHERS" don't you understand? Originally Posted by Wheretonow

Like, segregation?

I asked you a direct question, a simple "yes" or no" would suffice. Instead, you replied with another question and a citation. I asked your opinion, not Epstein's opinion.

I'm not as rude as you, so I'll answer your question. I have a problem with all kinds of discrimination. Are you trying to change the subject to Affirmative Action? Quotas? That is not what the discussion is, plus I also believe quotas is a form of discrimination and I don't approve of it either. The discussion is refusal of service based on discrimination.

But in your defensive reply, I take your non-answer as a "yes" to my question....you have no problem with blacks being denied jobs, university acceptance, loans, riding in the back of buses, using different bathrooms, based solely on the color of their skin (emphasis added). Replace "blacks" with "Gays", "Jewish", "Muslim", "Women", where you want... Originally Posted by Luke Skywalker

I'm sorry that from all of my posts that you've responded to you must have missed where I said this in more than one of them:

"I think it's despicable to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation, skin color, ethnic background, or for any reason other than their individual actions."

So, your decision to overlook or ignore that I have said that I have no problem with gay marriage and I abor discrimination considerably weakens your attempt to paint me as a bigot.

However, making people provide products and services that they are opposed to providing is, in fact, a form of slavery. It appears that you would object to slavery, therefore I'm going to assume that we're on the same side of this issue.

I'm sorry that from all of my posts that you've responded to you must have missed where I said this in more than one of them:

"I think it's despicable to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation, skin color, ethnic background, or for any reason other than their individual actions."

So, your decision to overlook or ignore that I have said that I have no problem with gay marriage and I abor discrimination considerably weakens your attempt to paint me as a bigot.

However, making people provide products and services that they are opposed to providing is, in fact, a form of slavery. It appears that you would object to slavery, therefore I'm going to assume that we're on the same side of this issue.
Originally Posted by Wheretonow

You just repeated your early post for the fourth or fifth time. I quote Einstein for you: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expect different results".

In case you haven't caught that, I am pointing the fact that you contradict yourself.

You say you find that discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual preference, ethnicity is despicable. ok.

You believe that is is ok for a business to discriminate based on color, race, gender, religion, sexual preference or ethnic background on (I quote you) "on a free and diverse society". You believe it is ok unless there is physycal harm. You explained already ad-nauseum why you believe that those business should be allowed that if they so choose.. You didn't use the word "ok".

So you find it despicable, but you don't think it should be forbidden for a bank to deny a loan, for a bus company to deny service, for a mcdonalds' to deny service , university to accept enrollment, deny a job, based solely on race, religion, gender, ethnicity.

You find it despicable, but you don't think such business owner should be punished by law when they discriminate. You don't believe that minorities should be protected by law.

In case you haven't realized, non-protection of minorities never solved discrimination. Punishment of discriminators have diminished it tremendously.

Your position is essentially hippocratic and racist. This position is consistent with the milder, modern-day ku-klux-klan, the KKK. Yes, they are still active, google it. That is your company. Weather you like it or not, that is the perception you give with your views. I don't need to remind you the train wreck thread you started last year with your "Us and Them" thread. You seem to be the only one that can't see that.

You just repeated your early post for the fourth or fifth time. I quote Einstein for you: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expect different results".

In case you haven't caught that, I am pointing the fact that you contradict yourself.

You say you find that discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual preference, ethnicity is despicable. ok.

You believe that is is ok for a business to discriminate based on color, race, gender, religion, sexual preference or ethnic background on (I quote you) "on a free and diverse society". You believe it is ok unless there is physycal harm. You explained already ad-nauseum why you believe that those business should be allowed that if they so choose.. You didn't use the word "ok".

So you find it despicable, but you don't think it should be forbidden for a bank to deny a loan, for a bus company to deny service, for a mcdonalds' to deny service , university to accept enrollment, deny a job, based solely on race, religion, gender, ethnicity.

You find it despicable, but you don't think such business owner should be punished by law when they discriminate. You don't believe that minorities should be protected by law.

In case you haven't realized, non-protection of minorities never solved discrimination. Punishment of discriminators have diminished it tremendously.

Your position is essentially hippocratic and racist. This position is consistent with the milder, modern-day ku-klux-klan, the KKK. Yes, they are still active, google it. That is your company. Weather you like it or not, that is the perception you give with your views. I don't need to remind you the train wreck thread you started last year with your "Us and Them" thread. You seem to be the only one that can't see that. Originally Posted by Luke Skywalker

My thoughts exactly. Sounds like white nationalism to me. I would not be surprised if he has an account on Stormfront.

Which, I will say this - there is nothing wrong with being proud of your race. Just remember, when people look at your bones in the grave, they won't be able to tell what color you (or anyone else's) were.

when people look at your bones in the grave, they won't be able to tell what color you (or anyone else's) were. Originally Posted by Adrienne Baptiste

of course, all of us that are cremated are black in the afterlife