14 years and counting...

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

Meltdown99 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

 

PJ_Soul said:

LongestRoad said:

Bentleyspop said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

rgambs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

LongestRoad said:

tbergs said:

LongestRoad said:

Ah yeah.. So are you all happy that the president signed an order to keep families together while going through the process? Does Trump get kudos for that.

Happy? Not how I would describe it I guess. It's unfortunate no matter what, but non-separation is better. As for your second question, no. You don't get credit for an issue you created. Forgiveness could be a possibility if there was ever any indication a mistake was made, but we all know that's never going to happen.

How about you, happy? Do you think he deserves kudos?

You've spent most of your time the last few posts just poking at the hornet nest for fun. Maybe a serious response this time?

If you actually read what i've posted in the past you would've seen that I've already talked about my feelings towards the issues that are going on with immigration. this has been going on for years it didn't just start with this administration. It has been going on through all the administrations.  and like I said before they only let the immigrants into this country when they need them and that's a sad situation. I'm glad he made the change in policy. I do agree there has to be a vetting process to keep criminals, terrorists and traffickers from getting in. I hope that they're making sure all that are being detained are safe from any criminals that may be awaiting the process.
It seems when it's getting close to election time, the party in office suddenly starts to change their immigration policies to get the votes for their party like the past administration for example. That doesn't make them a great president or senator or congressman, it just makes them a politician just like all before them. It's wrong to use these people as your political stepping stone. It's election time and the politicians are coming out in force to investigate the issue and "help" that's why all this is being brought up. They were seperating children from parents in the past administration. Once politicians get elected it'll back to the same. 
Immigrants should be welcome in this country as long as they don't expect a free ride. Come here to work and spend your money here, not to get in and then collect benefits that aren't available to the people here. 

Please enumerate the benefits that immigrants get that aren’t available to the people here.

Free healthcare, free housing, free food, cash assistance. I know you already know this but choose to act unaware.

I missed this post earlier. You don't actually believe this do you?

Where did you learn this from?

Alex Jones
Breitbart
Focksnooze
Infomax
RT
Richard Spencer
Daily Stormer

Nope. It's by living in the real world not a bubble. 

That is absolute bullshit. If you lived in the real world you would understand the actual realities of the economics of immigrants. Immigrants contribute positively to the economy in the long run, not negatively. For whatever help they may get, depending on the situation (no, it's not how you just intimated - free everything, lol. If that's what you really think you're in la la land), they make up for it and then some in the long run. Immigration is an economic PLUS in North America, and absolutely key to economic growth. You'd know that if you stopped living in YOUR bubble.
Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.

European Immigrants went about to systematically destroy every thing great about NA ... As a descendent from immigrants the worst thing to ever happen to First Nations people, the wildlife and absolute Canada the beautiful country they stole from the First Nations people.  Whats worst yet, is why the fuck do First Nations people need to live under laws created by their European conquerers .... make no mistake we are living on STOLEN LAND with more than enough money and resources to make it right with our First Nations peoples.  And JT is full of shit in his empty promises ... cash will fixl a lot of whats wrong with our first nations people.

..... That's veering pretty far off topic, no? I'm sure you know that I'm talking about current events in the context of the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration, and not about the history of Europeans decimating Native populations? I'd like to keep it to the topic of the thread if you don't mind. I do think what you're talking about is a worthwhile discussion, but not in this thread.

No it's not ... the topic is immigration.  You believe immigrants contribute positively.  I do not believe they have.  They brought disease, alcoholism, with their over hunting and farming practices they have put so majestic species at risk of extinction and how many forest did the European immigrant remove for their farms.  Plus immigrants contribute to the over population of our cities...

So you think every person in this country's history with the exception of Native Americans have contributed nothing positive? I'm a little confused by your statement. So you're slamming ALL immigrants to this country including the Europeans that immigrated (or invaded, if you like) here in the 1600's?

So you feel good that the Descendants of European immigrants stole this land and and dictate how our First Nations people live ... give your fucking selfish ignorant head a shake.

Don't fucking put words in my mouth. I was simply asking what exactly you were saying. I didn't say "I feel good" about anything.

This is stolen land in North America ... that's what I'm saying.  No immigrants do not contribute positively in my opinion.  They use up far to many resources, and in Canada most people DO NOT want inhabit a great part of this country because it is the second coldest country on earth, so the immigrants clog up and congest our cities even more.  

People need to acknowledge our First Nations people ... they should be able to live anywhere in North America tax free, hunt and fish (and barter their catch) anywhere in NA free from licences and limits.  

Meltdown99 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

LongestRoad said:

Bentleyspop said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

rgambs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Please enumerate the benefits that immigrants get that aren’t available to the people here.

Free healthcare, free housing, free food, cash assistance. I know you already know this but choose to act unaware.

I missed this post earlier. You don't actually believe this do you?

Where did you learn this from?

Alex Jones
Breitbart
Focksnooze
Infomax
RT
Richard Spencer
Daily Stormer

Nope. It's by living in the real world not a bubble. 

That is absolute bullshit. If you lived in the real world you would understand the actual realities of the economics of immigrants. Immigrants contribute positively to the economy in the long run, not negatively. For whatever help they may get, depending on the situation (no, it's not how you just intimated - free everything, lol. If that's what you really think you're in la la land), they make up for it and then some in the long run. Immigration is an economic PLUS in North America, and absolutely key to economic growth. You'd know that if you stopped living in YOUR bubble.
Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.

European Immigrants went about to systematically destroy every thing great about NA ... As a descendent from immigrants the worst thing to ever happen to First Nations people, the wildlife and absolute Canada the beautiful country they stole from the First Nations people.  Whats worst yet, is why the fuck do First Nations people need to live under laws created by their European conquerers .... make no mistake we are living on STOLEN LAND with more than enough money and resources to make it right with our First Nations peoples.  And JT is full of shit in his empty promises ... cash will fixl a lot of whats wrong with our first nations people.

..... That's veering pretty far off topic, no? I'm sure you know that I'm talking about current events in the context of the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration, and not about the history of Europeans decimating Native populations? I'd like to keep it to the topic of the thread if you don't mind. I do think what you're talking about is a worthwhile discussion, but not in this thread.

No it's not ... the topic is immigration.  You believe immigrants contribute positively.  I do not believe they have.  They brought disease, alcoholism, with their over hunting and farming practices they have put so majestic species at risk of extinction and how many forest did the European immigrant remove for their farms.  Plus immigrants contribute to the over population of our cities...

So you think every person in this country's history with the exception of Native Americans have contributed nothing positive? I'm a little confused by your statement. So you're slamming ALL immigrants to this country including the Europeans that immigrated (or invaded, if you like) here in the 1600's?

So you feel good that the Descendants of European immigrants stole this land and and dictate how our First Nations people live ... give your fucking selfish ignorant head a shake.

Don't fucking put words in my mouth. I was simply asking what exactly you were saying. I didn't say "I feel good" about anything.

This is stolen land in North America ... that's what I'm saying.  No immigrants do not contribute positively in my opinion.  They use up far to many resources, and in Canada most people DO NOT want inhabit a great part of this country because it is the second coldest country on earth, so the immigrants clog up and congest our cities even more.  

People need to acknowledge our First Nations people ... they should be able to live anywhere in North America tax free, hunt and fish (and barter their catch) anywhere in NA free from licences and limits.  

Meltdown99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Meltdown99 said:

Have you ever been on a First Nation reserve ... I have.  It's despicable that its how we treat our First Nations people.  I will say one thing about First Nations people ... most respect the environment that surrounds them.  Other that the housing and lack of clean water on some of the reserves, their properties are clean and they don't cut every last tree so they can have the perfect manicured yards that seem to be a common theme in the towns and cities occupied by Europeans thieves.

I sympathize with first nations people as much as anyone, but seriously, I drive by many reserves on the way to my in law's cottage. they are usually big piles of trash everywhere you look. 

Not the reserves I've been to in Ontario.  And so what if there is trash.  It's their land, yet the politicians  that descendant from European immigrants continue to dictate policy to our first nations people...maybe if Trudeau quit giving 100's of millions to every other country and gave that money tolour First Nations maybe then we can start to make things right...by the way I've been to enough cities to know that people who live in those cities are great a creating trash and littering, and 99.9% of those people are immigrants and descendants of immigrants and yet they come to someone else's land and disrepects this land and destroys it...

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

Yes.  Is it right to do?  No.  But I don't believe in government forcing people to run their private business how it sees fit.

I also fully support how the market would react.  

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!

In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for. 

All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

LongestRoad said:

Bentleyspop said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

rgambs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Please enumerate the benefits that immigrants get that aren’t available to the people here.

Free healthcare, free housing, free food, cash assistance. I know you already know this but choose to act unaware.

I missed this post earlier. You don't actually believe this do you?

Where did you learn this from?

Alex Jones
Breitbart
Focksnooze
Infomax
RT
Richard Spencer
Daily Stormer

Nope. It's by living in the real world not a bubble. 

That is absolute bullshit. If you lived in the real world you would understand the actual realities of the economics of immigrants. Immigrants contribute positively to the economy in the long run, not negatively. For whatever help they may get, depending on the situation (no, it's not how you just intimated - free everything, lol. If that's what you really think you're in la la land), they make up for it and then some in the long run. Immigration is an economic PLUS in North America, and absolutely key to economic growth. You'd know that if you stopped living in YOUR bubble.
Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.

European Immigrants went about to systematically destroy every thing great about NA ... As a descendent from immigrants the worst thing to ever happen to First Nations people, the wildlife and absolute Canada the beautiful country they stole from the First Nations people.  Whats worst yet, is why the fuck do First Nations people need to live under laws created by their European conquerers .... make no mistake we are living on STOLEN LAND with more than enough money and resources to make it right with our First Nations peoples.  And JT is full of shit in his empty promises ... cash will fixl a lot of whats wrong with our first nations people.

..... That's veering pretty far off topic, no? I'm sure you know that I'm talking about current events in the context of the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration, and not about the history of Europeans decimating Native populations? I'd like to keep it to the topic of the thread if you don't mind. I do think what you're talking about is a worthwhile discussion, but not in this thread.

No it's not ... the topic is immigration.  You believe immigrants contribute positively.  I do not believe they have.  They brought disease, alcoholism, with their over hunting and farming practices they have put so majestic species at risk of extinction and how many forest did the European immigrant remove for their farms.  Plus immigrants contribute to the over population of our cities...

So you think every person in this country's history with the exception of Native Americans have contributed nothing positive? I'm a little confused by your statement. So you're slamming ALL immigrants to this country including the Europeans that immigrated (or invaded, if you like) here in the 1600's?

So you feel good that the Descendants of European immigrants stole this land and and dictate how our First Nations people live ... give your fucking selfish ignorant head a shake.

Don't fucking put words in my mouth. I was simply asking what exactly you were saying. I didn't say "I feel good" about anything.

This is stolen land in North America ... that's what I'm saying.  No immigrants do not contribute positively in my opinion.  They use up far to many resources, and in Canada most people DO NOT want inhabit a great part of this country because it is the second coldest country on earth, so the immigrants clog up and congest our cities even more.  

People need to acknowledge our First Nations people ... they should be able to live anywhere in North America tax free, hunt and fish (and barter their catch) anywhere in NA free from licences and limits.  

Well this just means that you're a misinformed modern anti-immigrant kinda guy, just like my crotchety old parents (who is throwing in the unrelated First Nations issue as a red herring as far as I can tell). Yes, immigrants DO contribute positively to the economy and the work force. That's a fact, not an opinion.

You are mis informed ... YOU and every European immigrant or descendent of an immigrant are stolen land ... and those politicians that descend from europeans will not make it right....so quit accusing people of SOMETHING they are not....

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!

In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for. 

All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!

In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for. 

All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.

I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves. 

what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok. 

I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.