Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The very heart of the homosexualist movement is lawbreaking and rebellion. For years we've heard a litany of excuses for your lawbreaking. The pictures show a couple instances of lawbreaking to which your response would hardly be "break the law, pay the consequences".
It's hilarious watching you people morph into reflexive, hypocritical law-and-order fascists once you get a little taste of power.
So you find homosexuals and their sex acts so sick and disgusting that everyone who wants to should have the right to discriminate against them as vigorous as they feel like?
What happened to a business owners right to refuse service? I guess business owners have no rights either. Maybe they run a family oriented business and did not want a bunch of gay pride folks running around.
So when a black guy walks into a bar and a white loudly comments, "Hey, I thought this place didn't allow n*****s in here", in the commotion that ensues, it is the black who should get kicked out, not the white?
What happened to a business owners right to refuse service? I guess business owners have no rights either. Maybe they run a family oriented business and did not want a bunch of gay pride folks running around.
A business can, in most states, refuse service to someone except when they do so based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.
Now if they weren't wearing a shirt or shoes.... that's a bit different. In the case presented by the OP, it's discrimination, no doubt about it. Imagine if they told a black couple they wouldn't marry them, same thing.
I was clearly being tongue-in-cheek. But since you asked, the Dred Scott decision squashed parts of the Missouri Compromise. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not impose slave-free conditions on territories because such laws could result in a slaveholder being deprived of his property. They reasoned any act of Congress denying a slaveholder his property (his slave) violated the 5th Amendment.
What you ignore is that under natural law people have property rights in their person. Slavery was a gross violation of natural law.
You can disagree, I just don't see the point of protesting a law that will likely never, ever be repealed.
Nothing is forever. And in this country, change happens pretty quickly.
Quote:
It would be like arguing for the return of slavery or revocation of women's voting rights. Not going to happen, voters, at least the sane ones, aren't going to reinstate bigotry and racism back into law (good reason why the rights of the minority should never to decided by the majority).
No, they shouldn't, but there are good elected officials and judges who disagree with your concepts of what's fair, and what is a right.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."-- George Washington
This is why I am a libertarian. A government that is your servant today can be your master tomorrow. The fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent similar laws that violate property rights would never have been needed if government was restrained to its' proper role in the first place.
Um, I don't think slavery was ever a law... it was emancipation/anti-slavery that became law, unless you know of people being forced to own slaves prior to that. Sorry, but your comeback makes absolutely no sense.
But if we had a law today saying everyone must have slaves, I bet some people here would say "the law's the law!" if anyone refused. And they would be right, whether the law is just or not.
Nothing is forever. And in this country, change happens pretty quickly.
No, they shouldn't, but there are good elected officials and judges who disagree with your concepts of what's fair, and what is a right.
So these "good elected officials and judges" WOULD repeal anti-discrimination laws, allow for the return of slavery, and revoke women's right to vote? These "good elected officials and judges" aren't okay with concepts of "what's fair" and "what is a right"?
Please define the word "good" in your context b/c I see nothing good about such bigoted people.
Once again, I'm grateful that, minus a few racists, bigots, narrow-minded folks, and fools, this country is moving forward in terms of personal rights and freedoms and have created laws like these to make sure the rights of minorities aren't taken away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
