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.
What is a "legitimate civic obligation" and who decides that? You?
When did I say that? Why would you ask something so antithetical to what I wrote? Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote. Or perhaps you didn't care one bit what I wrote and just decided to spew vacuous nonsense in a vain and puerile attempt to dodge the legitimate repudiation of the corrupt and callous behaviors that you want to support.
Go back and read what I wrote for its clearly intended meaning, and then reply to it, if you wish, based on its clearly intended meaning. Stop with the childish games.
Using a channel for sexual gratification that is meant for exit only is deviant.
So you better be against heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex, too. Therefore businesses better go all the way and discriminate against heterosexuals that enjoy anal sex.
I stand corrected. I have to admit that I was born in the twentieth century and not the nineteenth, so didn't encounter the original usage of the word, and my earlier search on wikipedia didn't yield the usage note you found on reference.com.
Rest assured, though: I meant the word in its current-day meaning.
It's pretty simple. What people's lifestyle is is NONE OF YOUR CONCERN so KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF IT.
Ken
Until the customers want a product that has conspicuous gender cues, or their intentions are made otherwise clear enough that rejection of it makes headlines?
I stand corrected. I have to admit that I was born in the twentieth century and not the nineteenth, so didn't encounter the original usage of the word, and my earlier search on wikipedia didn't yield the usage note you found on reference.com.
Rest assured, though: I meant the word in its current-day meaning.
And you meant to insult the intelligence of Arkansans?
That's a reasonable inference when someone asserts that "intelligence" plays a role in bigoted actions?
Nope, freedom of speech. We don't get to pick and choose whose free speech is protected. But equal treatment under the law requires that you have to do business with folks even if you've got a problem with who they are or what they do.
Or what? You'll use the force of the state with it's threat of violence to enforce your version of morality and right and wrong on a business owner. Freedom of association is one of the most, if not the most, important issue in society because it gets right to the heart of liberty. It lays bear rank statists with the heart of tyrants.
Lets say you have a car that I want. I offer to buy it from you at the price you have listed and you say "Nope, I don't do business with Germans," I do not have the right to round an armed posse to change your mind. That is theft and extortion even if I still offer to pay you at gun point. Just because my posse happens to wear badges and blue uniforms does not make it right. Extortion and theft are wrong even when the government does it. You are willing to use the threat of physical force to extort business owners into following along with what YOU think is right.
Liberalism is tyranny masked as "tolerance" and "democracy."
And you meant to insult the intelligence of Arkansans?
Actually you did that by misunderstanding the meaning of the word I used. I merely pointed out that their legislators crafted irrational excuses for behavior bereft of moral standing. Which they did. Even though it really seems to upsets you to see it written in black and white.
But heh great job you did there driving the discussion off of the topic, for which you presumably realized your argument couldn't stand up to moral scrutiny, and got the thread completely and totally focused on your etymological diversion. Congrats.
When did I say that? Why would you ask something so antithetical to what I wrote? Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote. Or perhaps you didn't care one bit what I wrote and just decided to spew vacuous nonsense in a vain and puerile attempt to dodge the legitimate repudiation of the corrupt and callous behaviors that you want to support.
Go back and read what I wrote for its clearly intended meaning, and then reply to it, if you wish, based on its clearly intended meaning. Stop with the childish games.
What is a "legitimate civic obligation?" I want that clearly defined for me and I also want to know who would have the authority to make such a decision.
"Legitimate repudiation" haha okay buddy. Perhaps in your mind. All I saw was a bunch of leftist boilerplate and of course the big statist buzzword of "bigot." I notice your style of throwing out a bunch of sentences like: "vacuous nonsense in a vain and puerile attempt to dodge the legitimate repudiation of the corrupt and callous behaviors that you want to support" in hopes that no one notices you're not really saying anything. You're talking a lot, but not really saying anything.
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.
