UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
@AlecTheGardener , how often do you so vividly depict acts of male on male gay sexual activity like murdoch is doing?
Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
First you argue that there was no such thing as different laws for different people, now that you have been proven to be lacking in the mental capacity point, you make some strawman to attack.
I will say it again, I believe in equality, I don't think people are superior or inferior based on skin color. You obviously do or you wouldn't support laws based on demographics instead of equality.
Gay people should have the right to marry. Religious people should have the right to say "not in my house".
Individual liberties are something you are willing to sacrifice "for the greater good", I'm not. It's a philosophical difference we have, but instead being able to discuss the topic intelligently and honestly, you have to attack. I'm pretty sure it's because you are not real bright.
AlecTheGardener
Well-Known Member
Not too often, I think the last time was around a bunch of soldiers who started getting uncomfortable when the topic of homosexuals came up.
One of my buddies was a very public homophobe, I described a series of sexual acts to give him a ribbing about it.
Afterwards our gay squad member hugged him and Aaron laughed.
At least three years ago I think.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
where's the strawman?
is it that you don't believe in civil rights? because that's true. you have repeatedly asked why we need title II.
is it the part where you say blacks should have just dealt with denial of service due to the prospect of racist food spitters? sounds kind of absurd, but it's true, and i have the quote from you.
i believe in protecting people from discrimination based on skin color, sexuality, and the like. you do not.
it really is as simple as that.
IRON-EYES
Well-Known Member
@UncleBuck I'm eating beans
The whole thing just makes it easy for bigots to hide behind civil rights, that is where the problem is
I just don't get why one law abiding tax paying citizen would refuse to sell goods or services to another law abiding tax paying citizen solely based on their sexual preference.
No one relishes the thought of any sexual activity that is not of their orientation.
Thing is many guys who say gay is bad are really only referring to men.
How many hetero men would refuse to pull up a chair if asked?
Last edited:
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
I actually agree with you, what people do in their personal lives would not concern me.
However, I do not agree that government should force and punish businesses who choose otherwise.
let the market decide not a totalitarian government, which we are certainly heading in that direction.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i bet you wish that the market kept on deciding to deny service to blacks back in the day, right?
that whole "totalitarian" government, telling freedom loving racists like you that you can't cause harm to others via denial of service.
poor you.
Nice fantasy, but here is reality for the most part:
Thing is many guys who say gay is bad are really only referring to men.
How many hetero men would refuse to pull up a chair if asked?
You still gonna pull up that chair?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and here is heterosexual sex for the most part.Nice fantasy, but here is reality for the most part:
You still gonna pull up that chair?
maybe they should be denied civil rights too.
For you maybe.and here is heterosexual sex for the most part.
maybe they should be denied civil rights too.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm still young, attractive, and all my shit's in the right place, ditto my wife.
you're the old fart here.
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Damn... Hit the nail on the head with that one...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
look, another anonymous coward who is too ugly to show us his methed out meth-mouth.
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Of course after drinking all afternoon, I bet your wife looks attractive too.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Funny how you keep trying to spin your championing the abuse of another person and their property into something good.
You support a non owner of property using force to make another person serve them against their will.
You support laws that require a person to associate with a person they'd rather not and you also support laws that require a person to use their body in ways they'd prefer not to.
You also never answer questions like, "who has the right to make another person serve them" ?
I say nobody has that right, because if somebody is forced to serve another person, in that instance at least, they are enslaved.
The reason why you can't answer those questions is because you think using force against peaceful / indifferent people is good if the force gets you what you want. That's the same tactic used by murderers, rapists and thieves. Decent people don't force themselves onto other peoples property or ask the government to make others serve them.
Decent people don't tell other people how to live their life, if they don't agree, they simply avoid each other rather than forcing an interaction.
So, who has the right to force another person to serve them? Where does this supposed "right" come from?
greenlikemoney
Well-Known Member
Nah, it's probably because a person like you would use it in an evil way, starting with drawing a penis across it with your Pre-k paint program skills before turning it over to you know who. You are constantly asking people to post pics of themselves, hmmmmmm.