• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

I would be in favor of being allowed to freely interact and trade, do business with, and employ whomever I choose to.

Ok got it. Jim Crow and discrimination so YOU can be free. I guess my last question would be what about the ability of others to freely do business with and interact or trade with? What if someone you don't want to do business with, wants to shop at your store?
 
What is and what ought are always two different things it seems...

I'm choosing to ignore that you've mistaken me for someone not privy to business and all that entails, along with confusing my speaking on what ought rather than what is.

You seem to have missed the phrase "and we are better off for it."
 
Ok got it. Jim Crow and discrimination so YOU can be free. I guess my last question would be what about the ability of others to freely do business with and interact or trade with? What if someone you don't want to do business with, wants to shop at your store?

No, no I don't believe you do...
 
You seem to have missed the phrase "and we are better off for it."

no I caught that, I just happen to dis-o-gree...

I truly, truly, do...
 
Ok. I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. To further clarify for me, you are advocating or would be in favor of a return to a Jim Crow type of era and unequal treatment of women and minorities?

some people simply dont care about the rights of others or rules and laws of the land :shrug:
luckily though equal rights continues to win and discrimination and the infringement of rights is continue to be improved.
 
Which part of that is incorrect?


Which isn't? What would you like me to be for you, eh? You wanna call me a racist? Go ahead, call me one. I need a good laugh.

A misogynist? If you said misanthrope you'd be closer to the truth...

The part where you're wrong is that you're trying to infer onto me a historical period and all the emotional baggage that goes along with it.

I gave my view plainly and with no apology. You further pressing the issue bringing up Jim Crow and all that BS is only trying to shame and admonish me for acts and actions of other people from another time which correlate in no way with what I offered as my stated opinion. You think you can somehow shame me, that you can "out me" as a racist or as a misogynist, so, go ahead and just do it. I could care less really and I would be more appreciative of a direct accusation than all this *****footing about...
 
Which isn't? What would you like me to be for you, eh? You wanna call me a racist? Go ahead, call me one. I need a good laugh.

A misogynist? If you said misanthrope you'd be closer to the truth...

The part where you're wrong is that you're trying to infer onto me a historical period and all the emotional baggage that goes along with it.

I gave my view plainly and with no apology. You further pressing the issue bringing up Jim Crow and all that BS is only trying to shame and admonish me for acts and actions of other people from another time which correlate in no way with what I offered as my stated opinion. You think you can somehow shame me, that you can "out me" as a racist or as a misogynist, so, go ahead and just do it. I could care less really and I would be more appreciative of a direct accusation than all this *****footing about...
You can label yourself those things if you wish, I have not accused you of either of them. What you have described is indeed a return to the Pre-civil rights act, post civil was era. It's not my fault your views fit in so well in that era. I take it you would be quite opposed to slavery, and rightfully so, because it's very nature is anti freedom for the slaves. But your views on only serving and working with and hiring only those that meet whatever standards you have, do indeed harken back to the post slavery time period.

My question still stands unanswered.... What about those who would want to shop in your store that you personally don't want to serve? What about their freedom to choose to buy what you are selling?
 
Last edited:
What about those who would want to shop in your store that you personally don't want to serve? What about their freedom to choose to buy what you are selling?

There is no "freedom" to have a store serve you.
 
You can label yourself those things if you wish, I have not accused you of either of them. What you have described is indeed a return to the Pre-civil rights act, post civil was era. It's not my fault your views fit in so well in that era. I take it you would be quite opposed to slavery, and rightfully so, because it's very nature is anti freedom for the slaves. But your views on only serving and working with and hiring only those that meet whatever standards you have, do indeed harken back to the post slavery time period.

My question still stands unanswered.... What about those who would want to shop in your store that you personally don't want to serve? What about their freedom to choose to buy what you are selling?

Can't just be honest, eh?

The right to refuse service ring a bell?

I'm baffled and perhaps you can explain this, but why are you asking for clarifications on something that has already been answered concisely?
 
Can't just be honest, eh?

The right to refuse service ring a bell?

I'm baffled and perhaps you can explain this, but why are you asking for clarifications on something that has already been answered concisely?

Ok. So freedom is only for the business owner to choose not other citizens.

Do you disagree with the civil rights act in respect to its full and equal enjoyment language?
 
Ok. So freedom is only for the business owner to choose not other citizens.

Do you disagree with the civil rights act in respect to its full and equal enjoyment language?

Where did you get this nonsense?
 
Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"

Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"

People are discriminated every day for these reasons. You can't stop it, no matter how hard you try. However, it is illegal to tell someone they cannot have a job/be served/etc... due to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc....
 
Directly from you. Answer the question. It's an easy one.

:lamo

Presumptuous, I'll give you that, dishonest, but presumptuous...

Freedom is not for the business owner exclusively, that is completely asinine. Other citizens have the same freedom of association as business owners.

I did answer the question, don't have to answer it again. It was easy so it confuses me that you're having such difficulties.
 
:lamo

Presumptuous, I'll give you that, dishonest, but presumptuous...

Freedom is not for the business owner exclusively, that is completely asinine. Other citizens have the same freedom of association as business owners.

I did answer the question, don't have to answer it again. It was easy so it confuses me that you're having such difficulties.

So what happens when the business owner doesn't want to serve the person that wants to be served by that business? Whose "freedom" wins?
 
I am personally fine with people discriminating against whoever they want as long as they don't use the government to enforce it or legislate laws or policies that exclude certain groups of public services. The way I see it, arbitrarily discriminating against a group generally incurs a cost in the market and therefore it is a competitive disadvantage and those who do not discriminate will generally do better in the market. If I learned anything from Chick Fil A and Duck Dynasty, it is that there is a market backlash when people try to force nondiscrimination views. I understand that a lot of people would rather not associate with me, and that is fine, because I really don't see much reason to associate with those who do not wish to associate with me.
 
So what happens when the business owner doesn't want to serve the person that wants to be served by that business? Whose "freedom" wins?

You don't have freedom to interact with people who don't want to interact with you, that's silly talk. A business owner isn't preventing someone from making a purchase of whatever it is that they may want to purchase, he just doesn't have to be the one to sell it to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom