Kansas GOP proposes new Jim Crow bill
Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 2 months ago to Legislation
Interesting how the oppressors are trying couch themselves in the language of their victims.
"If you don't let us persecute you, then you're persecuting us!"
The KKK tried to use religion to justify their actions as well. It didn't work for them, either.
"If you don't let us persecute you, then you're persecuting us!"
The KKK tried to use religion to justify their actions as well. It didn't work for them, either.
Until I wear a sign that says "I'm a heterosexual that prefers the missionary position" when I'm in public, I really don't want to know what your particular sexual thing is. Tell me or force it into my face and i'm likely to respond to that instead of to how you act as a human.
That's a big difference. You're searching for controversy by attempting to restate something, as you often do. I think what I stated was fairly straight forward.
If you desire that I, as an individual or business, deal with you as you act as a person or human, then don't give me information I don't need, care about, or want to know, and then attempt to force or coerce me into interacting with you on that basis.
Leave the particulars and idiosyncrasies of your life in the proper perspective based on the interaction you're seeking.
: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
Choosing where to buy a loaf of bread is no different.
A persons race, skin color sex (the real two), religion are the only determining items to establish persecution. You on the gay side want to persecute against us for our religious conviction against homosexuality and deviance and want us serve your needs. That tells us that our moral stand is subservient to your perversion - you are wrong. We have just as much right to not serve you as you have a right to not be forced to listen to us present the gospel to you.
Gyms are one business where I can concede that discrimination based on sex actually has a legitimate purpose. Sometimes women just want a place to exercise in peace without having to worry about men hitting on them all the time.
Ever hear of "no shirt, no shoes, no service?"
Let's pass a law and stop this discriminating behavior. It's just not fair.
By the way, anti-dicrimination enshrined in hate-speech and hate-crime apply throughout the nation including race, gender, domestic violence, gender identification, and age just to name a few.
So beating someone up is battery, unless you're doing it because you don't like something about those classes. It strikes me that beating someone up that you like or don't care about one way or the other is just as bad or at least no worse.
Really is pretty one sided isn't it. If a businessman is approached by a straight guy who the businessman is offended by for some personal reason and he refuses to sell him a widjet, nobody thinks twice about it. Then a gay guy walks in and the owner refuses to sell a widjet to him because he was offended by the gay guy making a pass at him (yuck), now he's going to be sued for some made up discrimination garbage. It's really all about these people deciding that we ARE going to accept their lifestyle or they are going to destroy our lives - which is what happens to people in these suits.
So who's the bad guy here? I'm pretty sure it's not who malph thinks it is.
Anyway, to refute your point, all anti-discrimination legislation applies equally to everyone. For example, the language used in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which recently passed in Senate and is awaiting a vote in the House uses the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," meaning that it forbids discrimination against straight and cisgender people just as much as it forbids discrimination against gay and transgender people. So no, refusing service to a straight guy for no other reason than because he's straight would not be allowed. Equal protection means equal protection.
If a particular individual is harassing other customers or engaging in disruptive behavior, then of course the business owner can have that person removed from the premises. Anti-discrimination legislation only forbids a business owner from refusing service because someone happens to belong to a certain group.
Also education, so five (though private education could technically fall under the category of business).
Ludwig von Mises discusses this in his book:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-83rGVCeNZJE/Uq...
You ask whether it's fair for the potential customer to be the only one with a choice in the transaction, and I say yes, it's perfectly fair because the business inherently has greater power than the customer simply by virtue of the fact that they control the product. Anti-discrimination legislation balances out that power dynamic, putting the customer and business owner on equal footing with each other, which is something that would not happen automatically.
This is nothing less than more gay propaganda written to the lowest of literary ethics.
The real shame of this piece of trash is that you'd drop it on here with that horrible misleading title. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You and no other person has any "RIGHT" to tell me that I have to do business with them. MY clients buy my services and if I don't want to do business with them, that's my decision. Have you ever actually READ Atlas Shrugged???
What really peeves me is that I clicked open ANOTHER of your garbage ALL GAY ALL THE TIME channel threads, I get so tired of this crap.