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 01-30-2014, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,029 posts, read 8,347,675 times
Reputation: 4212

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Augusta has already CHOSEN to change their admission rules. No one forced them to do so. People can fuss and complain, but that is not forcing anyone to do anything. If the government came in and made Augusta or Curves change their rules, then that would be FORCE.
So then apparently you can't cite an example of someone trying to force a women's only club to change their rules. Lefties love double standards. Here's another good example. White folk need not apply.


MEMBERSHIP - MAMLEO

 
Old 01-30-2014, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,211,524 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
So then apparently you can't cite an example of someone trying to force a women's only club to change their rules. Lefties love double standards. Here's another good example. White folk need not apply.


MEMBERSHIP - MAMLEO
A group of people fussing about a clubs policy is not forcing the club to do anything. A group taking a club to court and getting the court to rule that the club must change their policy IS forcing.

Who FORCED Augusta to change their policy? No one. They CHOSE to do so.

BTW, a man actually DID sue Curves for admittance. Not just a boycott, or fussing about the policy, but an actual lawsuit in court.
So far, women-only gyms are allowed by the courts - seattlepi.com

He lost, because it is a private membership club.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 05:56 PM
 
9 posts, read 6,847 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
So then apparently you can't cite an example of someone trying to force a women's only club to change their rules. Lefties love double standards. Here's another good example. White folk need not apply.


MEMBERSHIP - MAMLEO

About "lefties loving double standards," lefties apparently remember the history of their own country. When you're faced with a nasty, racist history that started to correct itself less than half a century ago, it's somewhat absurd to play the suffering straight white male card.

Re Mamleo, non-profit, tax-exempt private organizations may discriminate--see Boy Scouts. They may also change their minds, of course, as a result of social change and social pressure. Again, see Boy Scouts.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,892,870 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalehtor View Post
About "lefties loving double standards," lefties apparently remember the history of their own country. When you're faced with a nasty, racist history that started to correct itself less than half a century ago
That nasty, racist history was made possible by laws that violated the right of free association.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,892,870 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalehtor View Post
About "lefties loving double standards," lefties apparently remember the history of their own country. When you're faced with a nasty, racist history that started to correct itself less than half a century ago, it's somewhat absurd to play the suffering straight white male card.

Re Mamleo, non-profit, tax-exempt private organizations may discriminate--see Boy Scouts. They may also change their minds, of course, as a result of social change and social pressure. Again, see Boy Scouts.
Of course the bakery is willing to sell baked goods to gays. It is just not willing to sell gay wedding cakes.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,892,870 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
Is Hitler or the KKK a protected class?
If you have a gender or a race you are a member of a protected class.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,211,524 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Of course the bakery is willing to sell baked goods to gays. It is just not willing to sell gay wedding cakes.
What is a gay wedding cake? I wasn't aware that cakes had a sexual orientation.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 07:41 PM
 
307 posts, read 405,489 times
Reputation: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
So then apparently you can't cite an example of someone trying to force a women's only club to change their rules. Lefties love double standards. Here's another good example. White folk need not apply.


MEMBERSHIP - MAMLEO
im gonna apply anyways. and if they deny me on race I'll sue them.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 08:14 PM
 
1,735 posts, read 1,770,320 times
Reputation: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
That nasty, racist history was made possible by laws that violated the right of free association.
Boom.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 08:24 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,201,197 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyKayak View Post
Bills filed in the South Dakota and Kansas legislatures seek to protect clergy, church officials and businesspeople who refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages or receptions because of their religious beliefs.

The bills would prevent clergy or businesses from being forced to perform or supply goods or services to anything related to same-sex marriages. It could allow a business to refuse to host a reception for a same-sex couple legally married in another state.

The bills also say clergy and businesses could not be sued or charged with crimes if they refused to take part in gay marriages.


this is really funny.

you dems and liberals think it is ok for a state to limit the rights of the people in that state when it comes to firearm, the kind of firearms and how many rounds a magazine can have, but you do not think it is alright if a different state seeks to limit whom can marry whom.

it is either 1 way or the other. stop being such hypocrites and saying that 1 right is ok to limit but not the other.
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 04:58 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