First they came for gays....

well I think the most important human right of them all is the RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE. you on the other hand-completely oppose that

 

what rights were removed that were in the constitution?

 

Self defense doesn't mean you can anything you want for defense.

 

Then they came for the Unclean - UnJabbed .. and you didn't protest because you were a Jabber
Then they came for the Protester --- and you didn't protest because you hate Essential liberty if it gets in the way of progressive wokism
Then they came for those anti war - and you didn't protest because of love for the new true blue neocon crew.
​

 

Its amusing watching the statists constantly always reading rights as restrictively as possible while constantly fluffing big brother
if civilian police have a firearm for self defense, it is pretty clear the second amendment and the concept of estoppel prevent the government from banning private citizens from having the same weapon. You are on record wanting to confiscate every privately owned firearm=thus you don't believe that honest citizens have a right of self defense

 

Yes I do, you don't need guns if criminals don't have them.

 

that is as realistic as believing criminals won't exist

 

irony

 

So you just make up stuff as you go along? How exactly did the SC say discrimination is legal?

 

Not only irony.... Looks like you asking what was removed after a post that says that nothing was removed had other effects seeing how quick you ran to get the post deleted. Good job!

 

I have no interest in catching you up on the news. Look up recent cases. Particularly one in which they legislated (you read that right: legislated!) to make it legal to discriminate... specifically about a gay couple (just an excuse, because there is no evidence that this "couple" even exists), but easily applicable to ANY other bigot who provides any service. There are several threads about the topic. This is as far as I take you by the hand. The rest is up to you.

 

Hopefully, the Supremes can remove Left Wing Disinformation. Instead of only reading the headlines and getting mad, read the actual transcript of the laws they debated and voted over.

 

Some people, if they actually did that, would no longer have posts to make or threads to start. Like this one.

 

That is like the definition sheep.

 

This is another one of those areas where you have to defer to the individual. Keep in mind that not everybody does something because they are bigoted. As well, those who assume everybody is like this, generally are themselves.

If you had a business and there was a customer you did not want to do business with [for good reason], do you believe the government should require you to do this?

 

That's correct. And the "individual" is the person who requests the service. Not to the business. Businesses are managed by people but they are not people. If the actions of a business conflict with the rights of an individual, the moral thing to do is to dissolve the business. Not the person's rights.

There is another example of the binary-thinking excuses that right-wingers use when they run out of arguments. You need to be careful to not incur in a binary fallacy when you use words like "all", "everybody", "everything", ... and similar.

But again, in a non-binary way, this is related to what I posted in your thread about rights. If what you do does not affect somebody else's individual rights, you have a right to do it. Not necessarily if it does. A gay marriage does not, in any way shape or form, affect ANY right of the business doing the website. But if the owner of a business refuses service to somebody because they don't like some condition (gender identity, skin color, religion...) that is DEFINITELY a sign of bigotry.

For good reason, no! Highlight good reason. Because they don't pay, because they want to use it for something ilegal, because it would put others in danger.... Those are examples of good reasons. Bigotry is not a good reason, as explained above. And BTW, nobody is asking that the government "forces" anybody to do the service. If somebody refuses to give the service they advertise, the BUSINESS should be shut down. It's no longer a business. It's a hate group, or a religious cult, or... you can call it many things, but not a business.

 

The moral thing to do is to allow the business to do what it feels is right for the business [unless they are breaking the law]. Most businesses are sole proprietorships so they are individually owned and considered private property.

Dissolve the business? Spoken like a true leftist. Off with your head!!

You and your binary thinking. Instead of harping on that non-sense, answer directly. And you are a grown man who can easily understand the context of the conversation. Stop picking everything apart and stick to what we are discussing.

Yes, if the business owner is doing what you describe it is discrimination but you cannot assume that everybody is like this. In my mind, this is one the telltale signs of people on the left...you [nearly] always assume the worst [it fits in with your world view and justifies the end game...control and domination through gaining political control which leads to economic manipulation and redistribution via authoritarian diktat and the ritual slaughter which marks the transcendence to Utopia].

I am know you are obsessed with identity politics, but most businesses actually want to do business. Personally, I think that businesses should be able to serve anybody they wish. I am sure you've seen signs in businesses that state that they have the right to refuse service. This should be their right. Otherwise, you are simply a slave to the state.

 

….because the person is a homosexual.

 

No. If the person asked for a custom birthday cake for themselves, that had nothing to do with homosexuality, then they wouldn't be turned down just for being a homosexual. The act of gay marriage, and custom stuff for that, was what was at issue.

 

Communists are the same all over.

"before, that wasn't real Marxism. But if I were in charge we could get Marxism right" -says the leftist. Over 100 million graves in only the last 150 years prove nobody got it right yet, but you guys think you can make it work. How arrogant!

 

The appropriate thing is to announce conditions that are not accepted in your business environment without discriminating against sections of the population on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Why do you think businesses can post a sign saying “NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE”? But you want to discriminate against selected individuals.

 

No it's way worse than that. They won't let states force florists and baker's to provide services for their same sex wedding. I had a same sex wedding in Texas and had no trouble finding people that wanted my business but now it's worse than Auschwitz.

It's just terrible I will spend years lamenting the loss of being able to force someone to participate in my wedding that doesn't want to.

That's like nine civil wars.

Lol

 

It’s the old question of whether the economy and our society is for the benefit of business owners, or is it for the benefit of the people and business is a means of bettering the people and society. I think we need a law that says if you want to do business, you must operate for the benefit of the community and you profit for serving the community. That would solve lots of BS.

 

I don't think this is about discriminating against any section of the population is more about discriminating against weddings.

Not individuals. Ceremonies.

 

No! Whenever there is a conflict, the rights of the people outweigh any so-called "right" of any business. This is more than obvious, and no further explanation should be necessary

I didn't say everybody does it. But this is the whole point I was making. So, since you agree that this is discrimination, we're good. It's immoral. And a business was not allowed to do this in this country until this MAGA Supreme Court decided to re-write our laws.