If rejecting the science that DEMANDS that there are just TWO sexes (not 3,4,5,6, or 22) and that any other combination will not result in even a mule makes me a bigot, I guess I am. That knowing that a island of either all male or all females, left unvisited for 100 years will be devoid of human life makes me a bigot, then I'm guilty of being a bigot.. Knowing that genetic science only provides for TWO sexes. If in fact, believing that all science accepts only TWO sexes makes me a bigot, yeah, I guess I am. That does not make it correct.

But here's what I actually believe. I think if I discriminate against a female because she is female, I'm guilty of being a bigot. If I discriminate against a colored person because of their color, I'm guilty of being a bigot. If I discriminate against a person because of their religious convictions, I'm guilty of being a bigot. (perhaps the other side should get a grip on this point) If I discriminate against another person because they are poor or rich, I'm guilty of being a bigot. If I discriminate against a person because of their race, I'm guilty of being a bigot. But no place do I find in our founding documents the demand that I do business with a person IF any of the above VIOLATE my values, my religion, my politics, no place do I find that the rejection of business from people who believe that there are more than TWO sexes or that the union of two or more of the same sex or combination of sexes other than X+Y is acceptable and that I must accept their business.

No place do I find that I must accept a persons desires or lusts as being more important than my own. Or that I must accept a personal desire as being equal to a birthright.

There are two sexes, anything else is a personal choice or a desire. Get over it.

There's no severance of control: the space was opened to the use of customers, the bigoted business redefined our purple lesbian eunuch as a noncustomer, despite the PLE's attempts to the contrary. The PLE literally did nothing save attempt to complete a transaction. The BB rejected it, thus initiating a chain of force. NAP does NOT absolve the BB from the consequences of aggressive action. The BB was the first to break the peace, by refusing the transaction, they cannot at that point reclaim nonaggressor status. The worst the PLE can be accused of is escalating an already aggressive situation: that is, responding to a slap in the face with a tactical nuclear bomb might be a bit over the top.

If you invited a friend over to your home, and later asked him to leave but he refused, he would be trespassing on your property. It's an initiation of force because they are severing your control over your property. When the bigoted business refused the transaction, they never severed control between the patron and his property.

The problem here is this is called Social Justice for a reason. It's people using their Natural Rights to counter others abuse of Natural Rights (typically the abuse lies in claiming it's your Natural Right to oppress others'). There's no actual governmental involvement, so it is literally speech versus speech. As for FRC being a hate group, That's actually a SPLC definition http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/in... and the SPLC has literally made a vocation of determining what precisely is a hate group, starting with the KKK and working its way through other groups. As for Eich's ouster, Mozilla is a 501(c)3 organization, which is tax exempt as a _quid pro quo_ of being prohibited by law from issue advocacy outside their narrow charter. Eich was booted because he threatened their tax-exempt status. Basically, your characterization of the issues as mob action is bogus, there are valid non-mob-based reasons for the actions that qualify as more likely under Ockham's razor.

Many Supreme Court decisions appear to be incorrect, some obviously so [Dread Scott for instance!] let’s see what happens to you if you act in contravention to one of the laws they incorrectly decided. I am thinking that while you may have the moral high ground, that high ground may well be located in a jail cell!

No, I am not denying anyone anything. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of these people who are so keen to find hypocrisy in others. Now to be fair they arte not using the force of law in this instance, just "Mob" action. However a large part of this "Mob" action is legitimized by the courts..especially the civil court system...and our lawmakers. Please note, when I refer to “Mob action” I refer to the French Revolution type of mob, not Italian/American organized crime.

How is it initiating force? They changed nothing about the situation. The bigoted business initiated the force by refusing a valid transaction.

Why would it be trespassing, they were invited under false pretense.

Absolutely. There is no legal differentiation. Once religious rights are suborned by "anti-discrimination" laws, it is a death sentence for religious liberty in this nation of all kinds. The State then becomes the national religion.

It's a false argument, really. They are using the boogeyman of "discrimination" as a fear tactic. They have no respect for the First Amendment.

All the law says is that it explicitly respects an individual's religious rights when in a business context. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding because he doesn't believe in that lifestyle, he is protected from legal action. That's all it is. There are similar "protection of conscience" laws being proposed in a lot of different states, and the argument against them always comes back to this supposed "bigotry". What they never mention is that they are attempting to completely overturn the First Amendment and assume a non-existent right to someone else's service, goods, or time on top of that. It is the mindset of entitlement and selfishness. If they were as tolerant as they claim others aren't, they'd simply find another establishment with which to do business.

Yeah, don't you just hate it when people use their freedom of speech to deny it to other....wait a damn minute here, you're doing it yourself, aren't you?

What does a business owe a customer who hasn't paid for anything? Nothing.
What does a business owe a customer that has paid for something? What they paid for.
Does a business owe employees to hire without bigotry? Yes.
Does a business owe customers to serve all of them no matter what their behavior? No.

It's that simple. The right to behave in certain ways does not trump the rights of others.

This is not the forum to be suggesting that people MUST do business with those they choose not to do business with (reread Atlas Shrugged if you think so).

I'm all for gay rights.
I'm not religious.
Utterly against gays demanding service from whomever they choose trumping religious rights.

No one OWES ANYONE service. Anyone can refuse service to anyone. May lose a job in the process, but that's freedom.

When we start legislating who must be served, the government will have the right to demand such, even if it means selling to your competitor, or worse.

That's just wrong. Again, no one owes anyone to take them on as a customer.

Hello g4lt,
I am not an advocate for any form of race, sex or religious discrimination, but a "private business" is just that. If it is a private business then it is private property and therefore an owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish and ask anyone no longer welcome to leave or be prosecuted for trespassing. I remember when I was young, seeing signs saying as much in many establishments. This may be the worst business decision one could make, but it should be theirs to make. One should be able to choose who they do business with or else they may be forced to do business with anyone the government decides including the government. If you are an arms manufacturer should you be forced to produce the weapons of your own oppression/demise, if your government becomes tyrannical? Does the government have the right to force your labor? Ref. Reardon steel...
Respectfully,
O.A.

Ask them to leave. If they don't they are trespassing. At that point they are initiating force.

That would be shrugging, and certainly a response to it. However, shrugging so you can be a bigot won't gain you lots of support: in fact, I'd bet that many people would be glad you were gone. That's one thing Rand never explored: when shruggers did so for nonobjective reasons. Presumably, one should be free to shrug whenever and for whatever reason they desire, but shrugging for chickenshit demeans the ones who actually have a valid beef

So, your argument boils down to the fact that only protected classes are afforded due process? So, white males shouldn't get due process?

I don't follow you on point 2.

I suppose if you want to be a very strict originalist. But what is the alternative? Allowing Congress to pass AND interpret the law?

Okay, they say "no, thank you" to doing business with purple lesbian eunuchs, great, that's their right. Then what. How do you get the PLE out of the store without using force (remember, regardless of how the transaction goes, the business let them in)?

I have a theory - perhaps an obvious truism by now - that one of the Democrat-Socialists' most effective strategies in achieving political victories is to prompt the most noxious and foolish of people within the "conservative" or Republican camp to take actions that can then be used to smear the saner bulk of the rest of them.

The collectivists know that they're facing the Mother Of All Political Trouncings this November, if not in November of 2016 as well. They also know that the weakest spot in the non-leftwing movement is the "social conservative" faction that wants to write religious mores into binding law. I think that's a big part of why the whole gay marriage issue, which has been around for years, has been noticeably ramped to full-throttle and shoved to front-and-center since January 1. It is vital for a Demo-Soc Party, on the ropes, bleeding and about to fall face-forward onto the mat, to paint its opposition as fringe religious bigots agitating for theocracy.

Whether or not the fine folks of Mississippi fit that description or are instead sober human rights activists striving to reestablish the right to property as hierarchically superior to a customer's wants, may be debatable (I do try to give the benefit of the doubt, I really do :-)

But wisdom in choosing one's battles - the appropriate time, place and manner - cannot be overstated here. Yes, whether their prejudices are evil or valid, the right of business owners to set the rules for their own establishments should be restored. But there is a right time, a right place, and a right way to go about fighting for a political goal - and this is an intersection of the absolute worst of all three axes.

Expect the Demo-Soc left to elevate this story to headline status and prop it up there for months. From a strategic standpoint they'd be fools to pass the opportunity up - it's an ideal chance to paint Republicans of every stripe as a pack of frothing bigots who want a bureaucrat installed permanently in every American bedroom.

The best passive counterstrategy is Total Radio Silence on all "social issues," in this election year and in the runup to 2016. They're issues that need to be argued, certainly, but we have significantly bigger fish to fry at the moment, which ought to be ample for yanking the microphone back from the smear artists of the left. Things like the transformation of America, via technology, into Orwell-on-steroids; the transformation of individual human beings into government-owned livestock via "Obamacare"; the awakening and emboldening of every two-bit thug the world over, via the collapse of American foreign policy; the impending financial meltdown into a Great Depression that will downgrade that of the 1930's to Small Dip in comparison.

I think it's obvious the rank-and-file American is tired of the whole Nero-fiddle-fire lunacy and is looking for whoever's got some coherent answers to the issues that matter. All we need to do to regain the moral high ground is return focus - repeatedly if necessary - to these vital, do-or-die issues, and most importantly **present concrete, consistent, and uncompromising proposals** to deal with them.

For the time being I suggest we adopt one of the more annoying strategies of leftists - changing the subject. We should strive for, again, Total Radio Silence on all things "social" - thereby refusing to take the collectivists' bait - and pull the focus right back to:

- the de facto war government is waging on the Constitution and on the people of America in general;
- the vandalized economy and what must be done to repair it;
- the treason Obama's been committing on the international stage (if someone can point to a single foreign policy decision he's made since January 2009 that did *not* benefit Islamic terrorists in some way, I'd love to hear it);
- the raw evil that is being committed under the auspices of the International Tyrants' Day Care Center, Manhattan Campus (a.k.a. the "UN,") particularly but not exclusively the Agenda 21 plan, now in full gear, for global fascism, and the UN-abetted attack on the Second Amendment.

If we allow ourselves to get dragged into the muck of sexual orientation, birth control and abortion, prayer in schools / Legislative houses / courthouses - not only will none of the looming catastrophes be vanquished, the people responsible for engineering those catastrophes - the Democrat-Socialists and their RINO Establishment wing - will remain in the driver's seat, all the way over that cliff.

D'OH! 'Wrote a book here. But then the comment field is the size of a wide-ish postage stamp and I never Twit, so...