lol, No doobies or anything else for that matter. I can't deny a drunk text once or twice in my lifetime but I'm really just a social drinker. This thread has taken a few twists and turns from the original topic.
No, it isn't. Your words weren't even used, let alone twisted. H2TM was responding to your comment concerning perceived criminality among immigrants.
You are also twisting my words. Are you saying there are only criminal American citizens?? There has never been a criminal from south of the border come into this country? Stop trying to focus on twisting my words to sound like I think the majority of immigrants coming into this country are criminals. But you can bet your ass I don't want any of the drug dealing rapist gang members coming into this country no matter how small a percentage there is of them. Not one of those scumbags should be able to sneak in. Not only for the people that are already here but also for the immigrants that those low lifes try to prey on. Are the liberals able to comprehend that without twisting my words? I have a hunch not. lol
Question: Do you think our scumbag drug dealing rapist gang murderers are inherently better than the ones from south of the border?
HaHa No but if you f'n liberals stopped fighting for the rights of convicted scumbag murdering rapist drug dealing gang members then maybe it would be harder for them to get back out on the streets.And sanother thing, stop making their time in prison comfortable.
I can't imagine living inside a mind so filled with fear and hatred. I will pray for your soul.
Thank you. I'll pray for yours too. Like I already said I only fear God. And what hatred? I gave my opinion. You seem to be defending the very people the immigrants are fleeing their countries from??? You got some friends on the inside you feel you need to bat for? Sorry, I'll stick to defending the rights of the immigrants seeking help and citizens of this country.
You stick to convincing yourself that's what you are doing and know that you aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
No, it isn't. Your words weren't even used, let alone twisted. H2TM was responding to your comment concerning perceived criminality among immigrants.
You are also twisting my words. Are you saying there are only criminal American citizens?? There has never been a criminal from south of the border come into this country? Stop trying to focus on twisting my words to sound like I think the majority of immigrants coming into this country are criminals. But you can bet your ass I don't want any of the drug dealing rapist gang members coming into this country no matter how small a percentage there is of them. Not one of those scumbags should be able to sneak in. Not only for the people that are already here but also for the immigrants that those low lifes try to prey on. Are the liberals able to comprehend that without twisting my words? I have a hunch not. lol
Question: Do you think our scumbag drug dealing rapist gang murderers are inherently better than the ones from south of the border?
HaHa No but if you f'n liberals stopped fighting for the rights of convicted scumbag murdering rapist drug dealing gang members then maybe it would be harder for them to get back out on the streets.And sanother thing, stop making their time in prison comfortable.
I can't imagine living inside a mind so filled with fear and hatred. I will pray for your soul.
Thank you. I'll pray for yours too. Like I already said I only fear God. And what hatred? I gave my opinion. You seem to be defending the very people the immigrants are fleeing their countries from??? You got some friends on the inside you feel you need to bat for? Sorry, I'll stick to defending the rights of the immigrants seeking help and citizens of this country.
You stick to convincing yourself that's what you are doing and know that you aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
You think you know what's in my heart? I mean afterall you are a powerful man and intuit
No, it isn't. Your words weren't even used, let alone twisted. H2TM was responding to your comment concerning perceived criminality among immigrants.
You are also twisting my words. Are you saying there are only criminal American citizens?? There has never been a criminal from south of the border come into this country? Stop trying to focus on twisting my words to sound like I think the majority of immigrants coming into this country are criminals. But you can bet your ass I don't want any of the drug dealing rapist gang members coming into this country no matter how small a percentage there is of them. Not one of those scumbags should be able to sneak in. Not only for the people that are already here but also for the immigrants that those low lifes try to prey on. Are the liberals able to comprehend that without twisting my words? I have a hunch not. lol
Question: Do you think our scumbag drug dealing rapist gang murderers are inherently better than the ones from south of the border?
HaHa No but if you f'n liberals stopped fighting for the rights of convicted scumbag murdering rapist drug dealing gang members then maybe it would be harder for them to get back out on the streets.And sanother thing, stop making their time in prison comfortable.
I can't imagine living inside a mind so filled with fear and hatred. I will pray for your soul.
Thank you. I'll pray for yours too. Like I already said I only fear God. And what hatred? I gave my opinion. You seem to be defending the very people the immigrants are fleeing their countries from??? You got some friends on the inside you feel you need to bat for? Sorry, I'll stick to defending the rights of the immigrants seeking help and citizens of this country.
You stick to convincing yourself that's what you are doing and know that you aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
You think you know what's in my heart? I mean afterall you are a powerful man and intuit
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
I have admittedly gone back and forth on this. while I don't necessarily agree it's the same in terms of ethics, refusing service to someone based on personal politics is considered discrimination. unless huckabee did something specific to this restaurant owner, it could be given a pass, but it appears she only ejected her because of her political affiliation.
that being said,i think SHS is a vile piece of garbage. but she still should have been allowed to have a meal.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
I have admittedly gone back and forth on this. while I don't necessarily agree it's the same in terms of ethics, refusing service to someone based on personal politics is considered discrimination. unless huckabee did something specific to this restaurant owner, it could be given a pass, but it appears she only ejected her because of her political affiliation.
that being said,i think SHS is a vile piece of garbage. but she still should have been allowed to have a meal.
And now loonybin Maxine Waters has issued demands to step up the harassment. Someone is going to get killed because of this.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
I have admittedly gone back and forth on this. while I don't necessarily agree it's the same in terms of ethics, refusing service to someone based on personal politics is considered discrimination. unless huckabee did something specific to this restaurant owner, it could be given a pass, but it appears she only ejected her because of her political affiliation.
that being said,i think SHS is a vile piece of garbage. but she still should have been allowed to have a meal.
And now loonybin Maxine Waters has issued demands to step up the harassment. Someone is going to get killed because of this.
I have to say, I didn't see the video, but I saw the quotes, and I was unnerved by it. I don't think harassment is the right way to go at ALL. It needs to be respectful and peaceful. otherwise you just create an even bigger monster in your adversary.
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
And several other central and South American countries?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
I actually find the bakers to be the worse of the two situations, but it's really 6 of one or half a dozen of another.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
I have admittedly gone back and forth on this. while I don't necessarily agree it's the same in terms of ethics, refusing service to someone based on personal politics is considered discrimination. unless huckabee did something specific to this restaurant owner, it could be given a pass, but it appears she only ejected her because of her political affiliation.
that being said,i think SHS is a vile piece of garbage. but she still should have been allowed to have a meal.
Has it been mentioned she was vocally behind supporting a business' rights to withhold service as it saw fit (in particular to gay people)?
She got to experience the discrimination she has been an advocate for.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Not if you believe in private property rights.
This is, of course, the famous argument that kind of blew up in the Republicans' faces in the 1964 election and caused the most major "migration" of minorities from the Republican party to the Democratic party. But even if it cost them that election, it definitely paved the way for the current Republican stance of "What I own, I OWN AND CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT."
A brief summary for those that don't know: Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican nominee, was against the Civil Rights Act. Not because he was necessarily against black rights or equality (though he probably was), but he argued if you OWN something (a diner, a store, etc), you should be able to do whatever you want with it; including turning away people you didn't want to serve. Minorities of course saw this as "Well that's easy for you to say, nobody's going to turn away some old white guy" and have been voting democrat ever since.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
I have admittedly gone back and forth on this. while I don't necessarily agree it's the same in terms of ethics, refusing service to someone based on personal politics is considered discrimination. unless huckabee did something specific to this restaurant owner, it could be given a pass, but it appears she only ejected her because of her political affiliation.
that being said,i think SHS is a vile piece of garbage. but she still should have been allowed to have a meal.
Has it been mentioned she was vocally behind supporting a business' rights to withhold service as it saw fit (in particular to gay people)?
She got to experience the discrimination she has been an advocate for.
And one more time... nobody likes her!
I don't care, in the context of this instance, what Sanders stands for or has supported. it's irrelevant. just like I teach my kids how to deal with conflict and if they say "well she did it first" I tell them the same damn thing.
your reaction is your choice. reacting the same as someone acted towards you isn't a defence.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
So you think that for the last thousand years, people just "chose" to be gay? Were they intrigued by the thought of being ridiculed, isolated, persecuted, and murdered? Perhaps they thought it was a good idea to have fewer benefits than the rest of society. Odd that it's mentioned in the bible, Greek history and every culture since the beginning of time, but it's simply a bad choice.
Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!
Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.
This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.
What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?
Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it. Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare? Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with? Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
Utter nonsense.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
Unless this is a joke, this statement shows you have really no understanding of genetics and the state of the science related to heritability.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/megalomaniac
GENIUS
www.headstonesband.com
that being said,i think SHS is a vile piece of garbage. but she still should have been allowed to have a meal.
www.headstonesband.com
That’s a lot of kids
www.headstonesband.com
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
www.headstonesband.com
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
www.headstonesband.com
She got to experience the discrimination she has been an advocate for.
And one more time... nobody likes her!
A brief summary for those that don't know: Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican nominee, was against the Civil Rights Act. Not because he was necessarily against black rights or equality (though he probably was), but he argued if you OWN something (a diner, a store, etc), you should be able to do whatever you want with it; including turning away people you didn't want to serve. Minorities of course saw this as "Well that's easy for you to say, nobody's going to turn away some old white guy" and have been voting democrat ever since.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.
your reaction is your choice. reacting the same as someone acted towards you isn't a defence.
www.headstonesband.com
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com