Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-03-2013, 02:01 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,418,544 times
Reputation: 8691

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2
It is indeed a behavior! It is something you can choose to act upon or
not choose! As a married man, I still like women....beautiful women! Women
I would like to have sex with!! But guess what!!?? I don't act upon
that attraction because it's WRONG!! Sin creeps at everybody's
door.....whispering to them to do what you feel. But we are not a slave to our base intsincts !

You still aren't getting it. A nun who is celibate her whole life may still be a HETEROSEXUAL. Likewise a widow who had plenty of sex with her husband when he was alive doesn't cease to be a heterosexual when her spouse dies and she never has sex again in her life.

That's why "ex gays" are a farce. You aren't "no longer gay" because you stop having sex with the same sex. You're just a celibate gay man. Until you can get your willy up for women without having to or ever again thinking about men, you're gay, gay gay (maybe bi). All day, every day.



Sexual orientation is not a sex ACT. Plenty of women in "hetero porn" perform same-sex scenes and do not consider themselves lesbians.

If you cannot understand the basic difference, may I suggest you refrain from engaging in discussions on human sexuality.

Oh... and you can take your notion of sin and shove it, honestly. Nobody gives a rats damn about what you consider sin. Lots of Jews and Muslim consider non-Hallal or non-Kosher to be unclean before God, and guess what, I thank my stars that none of that crap is relevant to ME as I enjoy a bacon cheeseburger.


Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2
There we go again, trying to hick your wagon to black people!

Awww, you mad bro? Blacks don't own civil rights. Civil rights existed before blacks had their movement, they will exist after blacks cease having their movement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2
Is there a certain action that you engage in that makes you black?? Is that what you're saying?? Because there is definitely a sexual act that CONFIRMS you being a homosexual!! Do we have to like chicken or something? Being black is genetic! You know any EX-blacks?? But I know a lot of Ex-homosexuals! They chose to change their lifestyles!!
The key isn't "genetic or non" ... it's chosen orientation, or non. Innate characteristic, or non.

Obviously you missed a few days in school, and I am not paid to educate you, but suffice it to say.


And ex-gays are a joke. Former leaders of the ex-gay movement have said as much. As mentioned above, ceasing same-sex ACTIVITY does not change your ORIENTATION, anymore than Michael Jackson bleaching his skin turned him from a black man to a white man.

I'd love to see a reality show featuring ex-gays hooked up to those meters and equipment that measure arousal, and then shown straight and gay pornography.... to see if they really have CHANGED, or if they're still the same gay folks... IN DENIAL.

I bet there won't be many volunteers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2
But they WON'T!! They are scared to death of the backlash!! So they pick
on the Christian who they know will not retaliate!! Cowards!!

Or maybe they aren't TARGETING anyone, and simply went to the frilly girly pink-purple Sweet Cakes store, expecting to be treated like anyone else, only to run into a complete douche bag of a proprietor instead.

 
Old 06-03-2013, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,221,070 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
It's still his business, not the publics. It's still private property, no matter how the state tries to redefine it.

Where exactly does it say in the Constitution that the state can determine who a person can allow and not allow on private property?

Fact is, the person refused service was not injured in this case. The baker owns the bakery. What gives the would-be customer the right to force the baker to do something he does not want to do?

Isn't the customer discriminating against everyone else that sells cake by showing up at this bakery? Why is the customer allowed to refuse his business to other bakeries but the baker is not afforded the same opportunity?
Look up public accommodation laws. Every state has them. Some even include sexual orientation.
If you don't like it, don't open a business.
 
Old 06-03-2013, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,515,322 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Look up public accommodation laws. Every state has them. Some even include sexual orientation.
If you don't like it, don't open a business.

I'm not arguing what they are.

I'm wanting to know why people think they have ti right to violate private property rights by calling something a "public accomodation."

I mean, I could just call your house a 'public accomodation" and you have to run it the way the state requires.

Why is it okay for the customer to discriminate and not the owner? Why does the owner give up rights when all he wants to do is make some money?
 
Old 06-03-2013, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,221,070 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Why are "public accomodation" businesses allowed to refuse service to someone with a hand gun on them? Or someone not wearing shoes? Or someone under the age of 21?

Seems like if they are legally abe to discriminate against those potential customers then they should be able to discriminate against anyone else. What makes a gay person so special?

And without these discrminatory anti-discrimination laws we would know what businesses we don't want to frequent.

For example, I would not visit this baker because I don't think he should refuse service to gay people. Thanks to anti-discrimination laws I have no idea he discriminates against gays. So I spend my money somewhere I don't want to. Seems logical to me. Denying my ability to gather information about a business I frequent. hell, he might even give his profit to anti-gay organizations. But I would have no way of knowing he is anti-gay thanks to anti-discrimination laws.
A gun is a thing, not a person. There is no anti discrimination laws for a person who owns a gun.

Barefooted people are not a protected class, and shoes are generally required for hygienic, and safety reasons.

Age limits are state laws to sell certain items.
 
Old 06-03-2013, 02:49 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,782,559 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
I'm not whining.

I'm just wondering why some people are not allowed to exercise private property rights and others are. And why are people okay with this.

What if the Supreme Court said anyone can come on your property whether you agree to it or not? Guess you'd be okay with that.
It doesn't matter whether I'm ok with it or not. Supreme Court rulings are binding. If you don't like them, either amend the Constitution or get appointed to the Supreme Court and change them.
 
Old 06-03-2013, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,221,070 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
I'm not arguing what they are.

I'm wanting to know why people think they have ti right to violate private property rights by calling something a "public accomodation."

I mean, I could just call your house a 'public accomodation" and you have to run it the way the state requires.

Why is it okay for the customer to discriminate and not the owner? Why does the owner give up rights when all he wants to do is make some money?
It is not private property, it is a public accommodation.

If you don't know the difference, then I suggest you go educate yourself.
 
Old 06-03-2013, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,515,322 times
Reputation: 831
If I hate Chinese people, and therefore will not patronize their restaurants, I violate no law. However, if the owner of the Chinese restaurant, for example, despises Jews, he will not be legally able to forbid them from entry onto his premises. Why?

Can anyone answer this with something other than "that's the law"? Doubt it. Because you support discrimination in same cases and not others.


I would not visit a baker that refuses service togay people. Thanks to anti-discrimination laws I have no idea he discriminatesagainst gays. So I spend my money somewhere I don't want to because of government inteference in capitalism.

Why do you deny my ability to gather information about a business I frequent? Hell, he might even give his profit to anti-gay organizations. But I would have noway of knowing he is anti-gay thanks to anti-discrimination laws. Why would a gay person want to frequent an anti-gay business? How can they tell if the business is anti-gay if the business cannot discriminate?

Can anyone answer that with something other than "that's the law"? Doubt it. Because you all support discrimination and agree with violating rights if a person owns a business.
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,515,322 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
It is not private property, it is a public accommodation.

If you don't know the difference, then I suggest you go educate yourself.
So you are fine with violating private property rights. You just wanna call the private property "public accomodation". lols.

Like somehow the person doesn't really own the property because they opened a business on it.

Well, I guess the public should pay the property tax since they own it and have a right to access no matter what the "owner" thinks.
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,038 posts, read 2,515,322 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
It doesn't matter whether I'm ok with it or not. Supreme Court rulings are binding. If you don't like them, either amend the Constitution or get appointed to the Supreme Court and change them.
Congress can throw out Supreme Court rulings if they want to.

Again, I'm not saying it's not the law.

I'm asking why it is okay with people to violate rights as long as the person owns a business.

Where is it in the Constitution that says that government will recognize private property unless the property has a business on it???????
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:03 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,418,544 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
So you are fine with violating private property rights. You just wanna call it "public accomodation". lols.

Like somehow the person doesn't really own the proerty because they opened a business on it.

Well, I guess the public should pay the property tax since they own it and have a right to access no matter what the "owner" thinks.

Seriously guy, you're ACTUALLY arguing with a lot of well settled jurisprudence when you gripe about public accommodations and the types of restrictions that can be put on same.

Lols.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:41 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top