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, 08:31 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,964,372 times
Reputation: 18305

Advertisements

It reminds me of Masters Golf Tournament. They are private organization and can set their own rules on membership;who plays etc. Difference between public and private. Gays therefore can discriminate/boycott anyone they wish to as that is their right as citizens Freedom of association has judge by private individuals.

 
Old 01-30-2014, 08:53 PM
 
9 posts, read 6,857 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
That nasty, racist history was made possible by laws that violated the right of free association.
You can't equate a white guy's desire to join a black club with Jim Crow; that you are trying is bizarre. One is a private organization, while the South with its Jim Crow was a foul, noxious bastion of racism that still hadn't quite accepted the fact that it had lost the Civil War. Experience of discrimination creates unions among those who are discriminated against. It's a protective thing, and happens everywhere. btw I'm not trying to imply that the South is the only racist region in the US or the world, or that racism is a thing of the past. Neither statement would be true.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,237,820 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
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.
And you repubs think that everyone should be allowed to own any weapon you want, but think it's ok to force others to live by your beliefs.

How about this. I won't fight against gun rights, and you stop fighting against my civil rights.
BTW some of us liberals/dems are gun owners, including homosexuals.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Mille Fin
408 posts, read 608,394 times
Reputation: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
Is a religious belief not enough to follow your own conscience? Its a free world.. I support gay rights but those rights STOP when it interferes with another person's rights... For instance, you have a right to throw your fists into the air but those rights STOP when it touches another person's face..
So restaurant owners should have a right not to serve women?
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:54 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,794,054 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
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.
You do see the distinction between the two right? Regardless of the effectiveness of gun control, the attempt/goal is obviously to reduce violence. Banning SSM serves no legitimate state function whatsoever. It's done for no other reason than to appease the bigotry of religious conservatives. That's why they are not equal examples.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 10:07 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,897,818 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Yes, what a shame...protecting freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

How utterly horrific it is to allow Americans to still be able to decide on their own which other people they will associate with and why.
well said. the first amendment specifically allows for the freedom of religion;

Quote:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


just how draconian would you like the various government agencies across the country to be? forcing a church to perform gay marriages, when they object sets a bad precedence, because it means that the first amendment is now void because the government would be telling churches what to do.
 
Old 01-30-2014, 10:41 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEFTIMAGE View Post
So restaurant owners should have a right not to serve women?
Sure why not?

If owners want to exclude people and push others away, why should we stop them?

I don't want to support bigots with my money. It'd be much easier if people could be up front about it. Hang a sign in the window that says "No Gays" or "Whites Only" or whatever and I will immediately know that the business is run by people I don't want to give my hard-earned cash to.
 
Old 01-31-2014, 03:59 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,919,730 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
What is a gay wedding cake? I wasn't aware that cakes had a sexual orientation.

Obviously there are gay wedding cakes. The refusal to bake one is what the court case was about.
 
Old 01-31-2014, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,237,820 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Obviously there are gay wedding cakes. The refusal to bake one is what the court case was about.
Please explain the difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight wedding cake.

Just a hint. Neither case was about the sexual orientation of the cake.
 
Old 01-31-2014, 07:36 AM
 
3,728 posts, read 4,876,038 times
Reputation: 2294
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
So business could also be allowed to refuse to serve blacks, yes? How about people watch reality TV? Or people who work in the porn industry? Or people who live in ranch houses? Once you allow discrimination against one type of people, you have to allow it for all.

In my profession, we've actually done work for clients whose business I personally abhor -- newsletters promoting far right causes -- but that's business. Should we be allowed by law to discriminate against them, even though we're the best in our industry at what we do?
Yes.

I believe that businesses should be allowed to serve or not serve whomever they want. We might disagree with it, but I believe that should be their right. You can always draw attention to that business and try to arrange a boycott or patronize a business that doesn't discriminate.

As far as your business doing work for people you abhor, good for you. I personally wouldn't publish any material put forward by Neo-Nazis or Klansmen nor would I publish material by Communists or violent religious zealots, but if your principles are for sales, all the power to you.

On a side note, do you really want a person who despises you and would otherwise refuse to serve you handle your food? Sure might have won by getting that homophobic or anti-Semitic bakery to make your wedding cake, but that cake contained an abnormally high amount of urine, saliva, and semen for a baked good.
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 11:57 PM.

© 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