14 years and counting...

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!

Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!

unsung said:

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!

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

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.

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

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. 

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

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?

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

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. 

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

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 how do you feel about the civil rights movement and what the Johnson  administration did?

Johnson administration: 1963–1968

Lyndon Johnson made civil rights one of his highest priorities, coupling it with a whites war on poverty. However in creasing the shrill opposition to the War in Vietnam, coupled with the cost of the war, undercut support for his domestic programs.[215]

Under Kennedy, major civil rights legislation had been stalled in Congress his assassination changed everything. On one hand president Lyndon Johnson was a much more skillful negotiator than Kennedy but he had behind him a powerful national momentum demanding immediate action on moral and emotional grounds. Demands for immediate action originated from unexpected directions, especially white Protestant church groups. The Justice Department, led by Robert Kennedy, moved from a posture of defending Kennedy from the quagmire minefield of racial politics to acting to fulfill his legacy. The violent death and public reaction dramatically moved the moderate Republicans, led by Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, whose support was the margin of victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act immediately ended de jure (legal) segregation and the era of Jim Crow.[216]

With the civil rights movement at full blast, Lyndon Johnson coupled black entrepreneurship with his war on poverty, setting up special program in the Small Business Administration, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and other agencies.[217] This time there was money for loans designed to boost minority business ownership. Richard Nixon greatly expanded the program, setting up the Office of Minority Business Enterprise (OMBE) in the expectation that black entrepreneurs would help defuse racial tensions and possibly support his reelection .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement#Johnson_administration:_1963–1968

Do you disagree with this kind of intervention? I would argue that when human rights are being infringed upon government should do what's right.

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

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?

If you take a close look at the DNA Helix you will see that the gay chromosome  is nowhere near the ignorance chromosome.

mrussel1 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

LongestRoad said:

brianlux said:

unsung said:

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.  

The comment referenced the comparison of being gay to one’s skin color or gender.  I’d love to hear about the science behind that, since there’s no genetic code that makes someone gay.  You say otherwise thoug?