• 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!

Why "Pride?"

Henrin said:
Without the approval of both parties. Regardless, I don't consider a government license a contract of any sort. It is far more accurate to say a government license is the government using their domain of force to force people to ask permission from the state to practice their rights.
Click to expand...

Wait for it....wait for it....that's just your opinion.

Try to apply that to reality and see what happens.
Hey,as a business owner,I wish I couldn't be sued or arrested for my actions,but guess what,it just is not going to happen.
Especially if you are just sitting on your ass doing nothing.
How many times does this have to be said if you don't like the law,work to change it.
To do that,you have to convince people that your endeavor is valid and necesarry,and convince them to join your cause and help you.

You are not doing a very good job of doing that here.

Good grief man,did you ever think of the implications of your aguement?

It could very easily used by Lovecraftians as an excuse not to get prosecuted for doing human sacrifices to appease Cthulhu.

We are a Nation of Laws,and no one is supposed to be above the Law,not even Christians.

People here are not buying the premise that Christian business owners can get to use religion as an excuse not to presecuted,while Atheists are not afforded the same right.

What kind of sick and twisted Deity gets that worked up over a wedding cake?


I've heard Christians say "why can't they just go to another bakery" my response is "why can't you just bake the damn cake and then ask God for forgiveness,just like you do for every other sin you commit" (sometinmes over and over again).

Let's look deeper into the implications of your argument.
Do you think people are actually going to take being discriminated against.
I sure wouldn't
If a business owner discriminates against me,I'm going to make life a living hell for doing so.
I'll organize protests and sit ins just like my parents did the last time people were business to discriminate.
I'll go on social media.
I'll call for a boycott.
I will make sure there are picketers marching outside their business every day.
That is all well within my right
If my parents weren't afriad to get arrested for staging a sit in,neither am I.
I can afford the bail.

My parents fought long and hard throughout the 50's and 60's,through blood,sweat and tears,faced death threats,water cannons,cops,jail for the right NOT to be disciminated.
And you just want the right TO discriminate against people handed to you on a silver platter.
That's disgusting.

And futile.
Because it just isn't going to happen.
That ship has already sail.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
No one else buys this nonsense, considering that you've displayed a total lack of knowledge of civics.
Click to expand...

Where did this happen? Lol

You said the government can't change the contract after the fact without violating the constitution. Well, anti discrimination laws change the terms of the contract and affect all existing businesses that have the affected licence. Lol

Did I not follow your logic to conclude that the government violated the constitution?
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Someone give me an unbiased answer on why ANYONE should be "proud" of their orientation, and rather just "be" gay or straight. Why is it anyone's business who's into whom or what? Why must it be public business?
Click to expand...

I suspect when we peel away the layers, this is really what your core issue is. You're okay with gay people existing, you just don't want to hear or know about it.

There's a certain sense in which that's fine and there's other senses in which it isn't. Gay people exist. Gay people are discriminated against. Ergo, while it doesn't matter that you care if individual people are gay or make it public that they're gay, it does indisputably matter that as a group, they are being discriminated against and you have a moral obligation to object to this. There's a pretty wide difference between not wanting to hear about someone's personal sex life and not wanting to know that gay people exist because that's personal. That's basically saying you don't want to hear their problems, which is a serious problem. That invites people to not talk about these issues, and that's always beneficial to oppressors, never the victims. It shames people into not discussing these issues, which, again, benefits the oppressive system, not the victims of it. So yes, it matters that people can be open about these things, and if that makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem.
 
Henrin said:
Where did this happen? Lol

You said the government can't change the contract after the fact without violating the constitution. Well, anti discrimination laws change the terms of the contract and affect all existing businesses that have the affected licence. Lol

Did I not follow your logic to conclude that the government violated the constitution?
Click to expand...

And that's why new laws always allow business owners weeks, months, and sometimes even a year or two to bring their operations up to the new code.

You are really grasping at straws here.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I suspect when we peel away the layers, this is really what your core issue is. You're okay with gay people existing, you just don't want to hear or know about it.

There's a certain sense in which that's fine and there's other senses in which it isn't. Gay people exist. Gay people are discriminated against. Ergo, while it doesn't matter that you care if individual people are gay or make it public that they're gay, it does indisputably matter that as a group, they are being discriminated against and you have a moral obligation to object to this. There's a pretty wide difference between not wanting to hear about someone's personal sex life and not wanting to know that gay people exist because that's personal. That's basically saying you don't want to hear their problems, which is a serious problem. That invites people to not talk about these issues, and that's always beneficial to oppressors, never the victims. It shames people into not discussing these issues, which, again, benefits the oppressive system, not the victims of it. So yes, it matters that people can be open about these things, and if that makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem.
Click to expand...

I guess you think about it WAY too much more than I do.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
If anyone is concerned about the constitutionality of existing accommodations law, they are more than welcome to take the case to the SCOTUS; that's what it's for. So far, it hasn't ruled that any such law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Of course that statement is false. The Supreme Court has decided two cases in which homosexuals challenged a state public accommodations law. In each case, the Court held that the law, as applied, violated a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In Hurley v. Irish-American GLIB of Boston, the Court considered a Massachusetts law which defined the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade as a public accommodation and would have punished the parade's organizers for excluding a group of homosexuals that wanted to march in it. The Court held that the law violated the organizers' freedom of speech.

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, a local council of the Boy Scouts had terminated the membership of a scout leader when it learned he had openly declared his homosexuality. The New Jersey law at issue defined the council as a public accommodation and would have punished the council's leadership for what it had done. The Court held that the law violated the other scouts' freedom of association.

That's why legal action is always taken against the business itself, and not the owner(s) or shareholders personally.
Click to expand...

More baloney. Private individuals and private corporations are both private persons for constitutional purposes. The Constitution, and in particular the first eight amendments, mainly restricts what government may do. Almost nothing in it, with the obvious exception of the Thirteenth Amendment, restricts what private persons may do.
 
Grand Mal said:
They're both accidents of birth. Why are you proud of being American? Did you somehow accomplish that? If you're allowed to be proud of being American, then gays are allowed their pride, too. It's all kind of high school loyalty, seems to me. Neither makes much sense, but I certainly wouldn't deny anyone their pride if it's sincere.
Click to expand...

I can explain why people are proud to be out. At least fur some of us, we were taught to be ashamed of our sexuality. There comes a time when you just can't take hiding or apologizing for being yourself anymore. And you say you aren't going to. That is where you go from being ashamed to proud. There are people, some of them we are related to, some we are even close to that demand is be ashamed. Pride being the antonym for shame if seems appropriate.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
I guess you think about it WAY too much more than I do.
Click to expand...

You started a thread asking why pride. He posted a very succinct answer to your question. If you didn't want to think about it, why pose the question?

Were you just wanting to bitch about it?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And that's why new laws always allow business owners weeks, months, and sometimes even a year or two to bring their operations up to the new code.

You are really grasping at straws here.
Click to expand...

That's not why. lol. It's simply a matter of fact that it takes time for a business to get done all the required work to meet a new regulation.
 
Verthaine said:
Wait for it....wait for it....that's just your opinion.

Try to apply that to reality and see what happens.
Hey,as a business owner,I wish I couldn't be sued or arrested for my actions,but guess what,it just is not going to happen.
Especially if you are just sitting on your ass doing nothing.
How many times does this have to be said if you don't like the law,work to change it.
To do that,you have to convince people that your endeavor is valid and necesarry,and convince them to join your cause and help you.

You are not doing a very good job of doing that here.

Good grief man,did you ever think of the implications of your aguement?

It could very easily used by Lovecraftians as an excuse not to get prosecuted for doing human sacrifices to appease Cthulhu.

We are a Nation of Laws,and no one is supposed to be above the Law,not even Christians.

People here are not buying the premise that Christian business owners can get to use religion as an excuse not to presecuted,while Atheists are not afforded the same right.

What kind of sick and twisted Deity gets that worked up over a wedding cake?


I've heard Christians say "why can't they just go to another bakery" my response is "why can't you just bake the damn cake and then ask God for forgiveness,just like you do for every other sin you commit" (sometinmes over and over again).

Let's look deeper into the implications of your argument.
Do you think people are actually going to take being discriminated against.
I sure wouldn't
If a business owner discriminates against me,I'm going to make life a living hell for doing so.
I'll organize protests and sit ins just like my parents did the last time people were business to discriminate.
I'll go on social media.
I'll call for a boycott.
I will make sure there are picketers marching outside their business every day.
That is all well within my right
If my parents weren't afriad to get arrested for staging a sit in,neither am I.
I can afford the bail.

My parents fought long and hard throughout the 50's and 60's,through blood,sweat and tears,faced death threats,water cannons,cops,jail for the right NOT to be disciminated.
And you just want the right TO discriminate against people handed to you on a silver platter.
That's disgusting.

And futile.
Because it just isn't going to happen.
That ship has already sail.
Click to expand...

I really don't care what your parents did or didn't do in the 1950's and 1960's. If they were involved in sit-ins they were trespassing on private property. If they were demanding government force people to trade with them against their will then they were demanding the government involve itself in human right violations. If trespassing and demanding human right violations is your idea of a good fight then have at it.

I also said nothing about someone getting special treatment in law. I oppose anti-discrimination laws all together and support their complete repeal. I'm not saying this or that group should get a free pass by the law, but that no one should be affected by the laws in question.
 
Henrin said:
I really don't care what your parents did or didn't do in the 1950's and 1960's.
Click to expand...
That's because you don't benefit from it like I did. I now possess the same rights that you have because of their sacrifices.

Sacrifices you seem unwilling to take.
Are you mad that I have the same rights as you?
Henrin said:
If they were involved in sit-ins they were trespassing on private property.
Click to expand...
And I already stated they did so with the full expectation of being arrested.
Do you not understand how sit-ins work?
Henrin said:
If they were demanding government force people to trade with them against their will then they were demanding the government involve itself in human right violations.
Click to expand...
Wait,are you implying that my parents were bad people because they staged sit-ins during the 60's?
Exactly how are you any better?
If that is how you choose to see it,if that is your opinion,that makes you a terrible person in my book.
I choose to look at it as they did so that I can have the freedoms I enjoy.
If you want to take those freedoms away from me,just say so.
I won't stiop you from saying it,but I damn sure going to do everything I can to stop you from doing it.
Henrin said:
If trespassing and demanding human right violations is your idea of a good fight then have at it.
Click to expand...
So demanding equal treatment is akin to violating human rights in your opinion.
Guess what,it worked for Ghandi and the Indian Indendepence,and it worked for the Civil Rights movement.
Civil disobediance is a perfectly legitmate tactic as long as one understands and willing to face the repercussions for doing so.

It seems you want others to do your dirty work for you.


Henrin said:
I also said nothing about someone getting special treatment in law.
Click to expand...
But that is the end result. Do you not understand the Law of Unintended Consequences?

Henrin said:
I oppose anti-discrimination laws all together and support their complete repeal. I'm not saying this or that group should get a free pass by the law, but that no one should be affected by the laws in question.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion and your right to have them.
You have yet to demonstrate how you position benifits everyone.
All it does is put up signs on shop windows stating "We don't serve gays,or Jews or Blacks" like from the Jim Crow era.

Do you want to see the return of Jim Crow?

No one is required to adopt your beliefs and opinions as their own,nor to even care what you think.
If you want anti-discriminitory laws to be repealed,then get off your ass and do somethinbg about it,instead of whining about it hiding behind a keyboard in anonymity.
And I'll do what I must to prevent that from happening.
My parents suffered and struggled to achieve their goals,which was having the same rights as you do.
Are you mad that they did?
You seem to just want it all handed to you on a silver platter.
If you want more people to agree with you (because I don't see a mass movement of Christian bakers refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay people) then you need to have better arguments than "this is what I think and because I said so" because you are not that damn important.
So far,everything you said on this thread has been epic failure.
Only the handful of people here who already agree with you agree with you,and the majority here seems not to.


Do you actually think that if anti-discrimination laws are repealed,everyone is just going to bend over and take it?
 
matchlight said:
Of course that statement is false. The Supreme Court has decided two cases in which homosexuals challenged a state public accommodations law. In each case, the Court held that the law, as applied, violated a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In Hurley v. Irish-American GLIB of Boston, the Court considered a Massachusetts law which defined the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade as a public accommodation and would have punished the parade's organizers for excluding a group of homosexuals that wanted to march in it. The Court held that the law violated the organizers' freedom of speech.

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, a local council of the Boy Scouts had terminated the membership of a scout leader when it learned he had openly declared his homosexuality. The New Jersey law at issue defined the council as a public accommodation and would have punished the council's leadership for what it had done. The Court held that the law violated the other scouts' freedom of association.
Click to expand...
My previous statement wasn't false at all. In both cases (as you confirmed in your own words), the SCOTUS determined that the laws in question did not apply to the case. It did NOT strike down either law as unconstitutional.


More baloney. Private individuals and private corporations are both private persons for constitutional purposes. The Constitution, and in particular the first eight amendments, mainly restricts what government may do. Almost nothing in it, with the obvious exception of the Thirteenth Amendment, restricts what private persons may do.
Click to expand...

Just plain ridiculous. For one thing, no private corporation can possibly have a religious faith. And your implication that Citizens United encompasses all aspects of personhood is also false; the scope of CU is fairly limited, even if it does go too far for financial questions.
 
Henrin said:
That's not why. lol. It's simply a matter of fact that it takes time for a business to get done all the required work to meet a new regulation.
Click to expand...

I was talking about ex post facto legislation. I have no idea what you're babbling about. The only thing that's clear to me is that you have no clue what ex post facto means.
 
Verthaine said:
That's because you don't benefit from it like I did. I now possess the same rights that you have because of their sacrifices.
Click to expand...

You don't know me very well if you think I support something just because I benefit from it. I also never had any right to be on the property of someone else. Maybe your parents should have figured this out before they trespassed on private property and demanded other peoples rights be violated.

Sacrifices you seem unwilling to take.
Are you mad that I have the same rights as you?
Click to expand...

Why would I be mad about anyone have equal rights?

And I already stated they did so with the full expectation of being arrested.
Do you not understand how sit-ins work?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand it perfectly. In this case they involve trespassing on private property and then refusing to leave when asked by the OWNER of the property.

Wait,are you implying that my parents were bad people because they staged sit-ins during the 60's?
Exactly how are you any better?
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have a right to have people trade with me against their will. :shrug:

If that is how you choose to see it,if that is your opinion,that makes you a terrible person in my book.
I choose to look at it as they did so that I can have the freedoms I enjoy.
If you want to take those freedoms away from me,just say so.
I won't stiop you from saying it,but I damn sure going to do everything I can to stop you from doing it.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that I'm actually fighting for your rights as a restaurant owner? Do you think the law should just ignore people on your property without your permission? How exactly would you respond to people purposely breaking the rules of your establishment then refusing to leave? Do you realize that is what your parents did? Do you realize that what your parents did disrespects you as a restaurant owner?

So demanding equal treatment is akin to violating human rights in your opinion.
Guess what,it worked for Ghandi and the Indian Indendepence,and it worked for the Civil Rights movement.
Civil disobediance is a perfectly legitmate tactic as long as one understands and willing to face the repercussions for doing so.
Click to expand...

Comparing what your parents did to what Ghandi did ignores what Ghandi did and how that is fundamentally different than what your parents did.

It seems you want others to do your dirty work for you.
Click to expand...

I'm more than willing to do what needs to be done.


But that is the end result. Do you not understand the Law of Unintended Consequences?
Click to expand...

Can you explain how allowing you as a restaurant owner to decide freely who you want to do business with would lead to some inequality in the law?


That is your opinion and your right to have them.
You have yet to demonstrate how you position benifits everyone.
All it does is put up signs on shop windows stating "We don't serve gays,or Jews or Blacks" like from the Jim Crow era.
Click to expand...

Jim Crow was a matter of law, you know.

Do you want to see the return of Jim Crow?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it would return.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, I understand it perfectly. In this case they involve trespassing on private property and then refusing to leave when asked by the OWNER of the property.
Click to expand...
Which my parents were arrested for.
That was the whole point of of sit-ins, to get arrest,hopefully on camera all in the cause for equality.
To show the world what was really going on.
Guess what,it worked.

Henrin said:
I don't believe I have a right to have people trade with me against their will. :shrug:
Click to expand...
That's fine by me. If what you do it violates local laws,oh well,that's on you.
Whatever happens,happens.
Don't like the laws,work to change it.
How many times has that got to be said before you "
What do you want,everyone to praise you for it?


Henrin said:
Do you realize that I'm actually fighting for your rights as a restaurant owner?
Click to expand...
Where the hell were you during my city council's zoning debates?

What rights,the right to discriminate against others?
No thanks,I don't need it.
I don't discriminate and have no desire to.
I've tossed many people out of my establishments for violating my 3 rules.
I've never lost a lawsuit against me.

Why the hell are you trying to convince a darkskinned Peurto Rican who's parents where Civil Rights workers that it is in my best interest to allow people to discriminate against me?
I'm a businessman,I see nothing to be gained at all from your argument.
It won't make me money.
It will not make my whites whiter.
It's not going to wash my car.


Henrin said:
Do you think the law should just ignore people on your property without your permission? How exactly would you respond to people purposely breaking the rules of your establishment then refusing to leave?
Click to expand...
See above.

I kick them out.
The current laws have sided with me.
The system works.

Henrin said:
Do you realize that is what your parents did? Do you realize that what your parents did disrespects you as a restaurant owner?
Click to expand...

Do you actually expect me to look down on my own parents and think they were bad people because of what they did during the Civil Rights Movement?
That is a pretty damn sleazy underhanded disgusting tactic you just pulled out,even for you.
That was real despicable of you to pull that one.

I'm successful,with a great wife,great daughters,great grand kids all because of what my parents did during the 50's and 60's

I am quite aware of what my parents,and I thank them everyday for what they have done for me.
They gave me the chance to make a better life for myself

I'm supposed to cry over a bunch of bigots why?
No one is required to respect anyone.
Respect is earned. I respect what my parents did,why they did it,the harship and sacrifices they enduredand I reap the benefits because they did it.
If that makes you mad,tough.

Henrin said:
Comparing what your parents did to what Ghandi did ignores what Ghandi did and how that is fundamentally different than what your parents did.
Click to expand...
Stop with the bull crap.
The Civil Right Movement adopted the tactics of Ghandi's movement.
MLK himself stated that Ghandi and his movement was a major influence.
Both was all about the non-violent civil disobediance.
Both of them worked.



Henrin said:
Can you explain how allowing you as a restaurant owner to decide freely who you want to do business with would lead to some inequality in the law?
Click to expand...

Explain to me first how allowing people to discriminate against me without any legal recourse is in my best interest.

Henrin said:
Jim Crow was a matter of law, you know.
Click to expand...

Yes it was,and guess what,my parents helped to change that.
They weren't sitting around a computer all day whining about it.
They went out and did something about it.

Henrin said:
I don't see how it would return.
Click to expand...

That's not my problem.
I can think of a couple of scenerios where it could happen.
Yours just happens to be one of them.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You started a thread asking why pride. He posted a very succinct answer to your question. If you didn't want to think about it, why pose the question?

Were you just wanting to bitch about it?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, settle down.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Why are gay people "proud" to be gay? I'm not "proud" to be straight.
Click to expand...

Gay pride is a response to decades of being forced into the closet and told their feelings are shameful. It's a way of saying "I'm not going to hide it anymore, I'm gay and I'm not ashamed of it." Thus, unless you are ashamed of your heterosexuality, you are also proudly straight according to the definition of pride that is being used here.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Something has been bothering me. Perhaps it's my immunity towards this whole "gay" thing.

Why are gay people "proud" to be gay? I'm not "proud" to be straight. I never meet new people and announce whether or not I'm into men or women. I never wake up in the morning and think, "wow...thank God I'm straight!" I've never wanted to hold a meeting, party or gathering with sexual orientation in mind (Gay? Nope...can't show up. Only straight people invited).

Someone give me an unbiased answer on why ANYONE should be "proud" of their orientation, and rather just "be" gay or straight. Why is it anyone's business who's into whom or what? Why must it be public business?
Click to expand...

Before anyone can answer that you have to prove that there something intrinsically wrong with being proud of the achievements that one's culture,nationality,color,gender,sexuality?
"Because I don't like it" or " I don't do it myself" are not valid answers.
Just because you don't have "pride" does not mean it's wrong for others to have theirs.
Being "proud" is not necessarily a bad thing.

Why is it alright to be proud of one highschool fotball team but somehow it is wrong to proud of the things I listed above.
I'm proud of what we Peurto Ricans have achieved done in the past and are achieving today.
Peurto Ricans have fought for this country since WW2.
Why is it wrong to be proud about things like that?

I have no problem if white people are proud of their European Heritage.
Maybe if so many people had not mistreated so people who where different from them for thousands of years,maybe there would be no need for "pride".

I'll give you a valid,and unbiased reason.
Because they feel like it.
Thats the most basic answer there is.
 
Last edited:
Verthaine said:
Which my parents were arrested for.
That was the whole point of of sit-ins, to get arrest,hopefully on camera all in the cause for equality.
To show the world what was really going on.
Guess what,it worked.


That's fine by me. If what you do it violates local laws,oh well,that's on you.
Whatever happens,happens.
Don't like the laws,work to change it.
How many times has that got to be said before you "
What do you want,everyone to praise you for it?



Where the hell were you during my city council's zoning debates?

What rights,the right to discriminate against others?
No thanks,I don't need it.
I don't discriminate and have no desire to.
I've tossed many people out of my establishments for violating my 3 rules.
I've never lost a lawsuit against me.

Why the hell are you trying to convince a darkskinned Peurto Rican who's parents where Civil Rights workers that it is in my best interest to allow people to discriminate against me?
I'm a businessman,I see nothing to be gained at all from your argument.
It won't make me money.
It will not make my whites whiter.
It's not going to wash my car.



See above.

I kick them out.
The current laws have sided with me.
The system works.



Do you actually expect me to look down on my own parents and think they were bad people because of what they did during the Civil Rights Movement?
That is a pretty damn sleazy underhanded disgusting tactic you just pulled out,even for you.
That was real despicable of you to pull that one.

I'm successful,with a great wife,great daughters,great grand kids all because of what my parents did during the 50's and 60's

I am quite aware of what my parents,and I thank them everyday for what they have done for me.
They gave me the chance to make a better life for myself

I'm supposed to cry over a bunch of bigots why?
No one is required to respect anyone.
Respect is earned. I respect what my parents did,why they did it,the harship and sacrifices they enduredand I reap the benefits because they did it.
If that makes you mad,tough.


Stop with the bull crap.
The Civil Right Movement adopted the tactics of Ghandi's movement.
MLK himself stated that Ghandi and his movement was a major influence.
Both was all about the non-violent civil disobediance.
Both of them worked.





Explain to me first how allowing people to discriminate against me without any legal recourse is in my best interest.



Yes it was,and guess what,my parents helped to change that.
They weren't sitting around a computer all day whining about it.
They went out and did something about it.



That's not my problem.
I can think of a couple of scenerios where it could happen.
Yours just happens to be one of them.
Click to expand...

Your parents didn't just fight to end Jim Crow. They fought to undermine the right of association and the property rights of business owners like you. If all your parents did was fight to end Jim Crow then all that would have happened is that the laws forcing businesses to discriminate would have ended. Instead what your parents fought for and what happened is that businesses are now punished for discriminating.

A property owner reserves the right to refuse access to his property or the products he produces and or sells. It doesn't matter if you will only practice it in certain cases or not at all as that has no effect on you withholding the right. What your parents actually did was motivate the federal government to tell property owners that certain reasons to withhold access to their property, their association and their labor were unacceptable. What your parents actually did was undermine the rights of others so they could benefit from trade against other peoples will.

You can blast me all you please for telling it how it is about your parents, but no matter how much you whine about what I say about their actions everything I say about them will remain the truth.

What is sad is that you keep going over the three reasons you find acceptable to practice your right to refuse service, and yet, you fail to understand that your parents fought to undermine that very right you hold dear.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Your parents didn't just fight to end Jim Crow. They fought to undermine the right of association and the property rights of business owners like you. If all your parents did was fight to end Jim Crow then all that would have happened is that the laws forcing businesses to discriminate would have ended. Instead what your parents fought for and what happened is that businesses are now punished for discriminating.

A property owner reserves the right to refuse access to his property or the products he produces and or sells. It doesn't matter if you will only practice it in certain cases or not at all as that has no effect on you withholding the right. What your parents actually did was motivate the federal government to tell property owners that certain reasons to withhold access to their property, their association and their labor were unacceptable. What your parents actually did was undermine the rights of others so they could benefit from trade against other peoples will.

You can blast me all you please for telling it how it is about your parents, but no matter how much you whine about what I say about their actions everything I say about them will remain the truth.

What is sad is that you keep going over the three reasons you find acceptable to practice your right to refuse service, and yet, you fail to understand that your parents fought to undermine that very right you hold dear.
Click to expand...

First off,anything you've said so far has not been the truth,it has been JUST YOUR OPINIONS.

You, sir,are insane. Certifiably insane.
Since it has become apparent that you will sink down to the gutter just to score points on a internet debate (how pathetic is that),by trying to get me to condemn my own parents,by trying to get me to admit my own parents were wrong for the things they did during the Civil Rights Era,just shows how low you can get. I see no reason to debate someone who would use such tawdry and despicable tactics.
You've convinced no one,your arguments have failed and have fallen on deaf ears all around,you resort to tawdry sleazy tactics,and you provide no evidence of anything you allege.
You sir,have FAILED./b]
It is a waste of time to debate with you since you'll just go deeper and deeper into the gutter.
I have better things to do than waste my time on someone whose only accomplishment here was to totally convince me that you are a narcissitic sociopath.

If you want to think you somehow won this debate,go right ahead.
Couldn't care less what someone like you think. You don't have the power or support to implement your argument anyway

Do everyone a favor and just walk away like I am going to do,because anything else you have to say after this is just masturbating your own little ego.
And no one wants to see that.
I'm done with you.
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
Ah, nice. Your coup de gras is insinuating that I'm gay in badly-written English. Cheers.
Click to expand...

I insinuated nothing of the kind. I have no idea of anyone's orientation on this board, unless they come out and say so. In fact...I really don't care one way or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom