Reply With Quote
You really show your ignorance sometimes. Can't make a point without doing so? Thought you were above name calling.
I thought liberals were vehemently opposed to having the government force citizens to do things against their will?
You really show your ignorance sometimes. Can't make a point without doing so? Thought you were above name calling.
LOL It's a message board populated with its fair share of idiots. Name calling and irritating the PC cops is just part of the fun.
But they are covered by state law
dumb law, but true.
don't know what you mean by "generally accepted" and don't really care because it's irrelevant to CC's statement.
the next battle is to get LGBT added to Federal anti-discrimination laws. iow, The Christian Haters.
How else do you interpret this:
Leviticus 20:13Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
13*`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.
Well you think the CRA of 64 is dumb too. You just don't know you think that.
that's as stereotypical conservative as it gets
lol since when
I think that a government discriminating against anyone over race, religion, sexual preference etc. is absolutely wrong.
I think the government forcing a private citizen to conduct business with someone he doesn't want to conduct business with for whatever reason is absolutely wrong too as long as there are multiple providers of the same service.
In that regard you can say that I am philosophically opposed to the general interpretation of the CR act of 1964.
I have no personal animosity against any race or religion or gender but resent the government intrusion into otherwise non criminal personal interactions.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 08-14-2015 at 12:25 PM.
We tried that before. Didn't work out too well for some people.
Why is that?
A philosophical analogy is that it was wrong for the bus line, a governmental en y to make Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus.
In my opinion it would be equally wrong for the government to force me as a private citizen to pick up Rosa Parks if she was hitchhiking.
Abortion for starters. The. There's the whole surveillance state/war on terror thing. Drug testing welfare applicants is another example.
wow try again
I'm not running a public-serving, for-profit business driving my car
Not hard to understand but I'll put it in cuck speak since you're a moron: is there a mainstream religion that instructs its followers that being black is a sin?
Is there a difference between instructing a business which customers it must serve and which prices it must set for its goods?
The LAW rules a business cannot discriminate base on any of several criteria. If you don't like the law, get it changed.
Was there an answer to my question in there? Didn't see one ...
Mormon gets close tbqh.
What if he lives in a small East Texas town with one bakery?
Lol mark of Cain
Look, this is why racial segregation had to be outlawed. It wasn't the government who forced restaurants to separate the blacks into other restrooms, other areas of the restaurant, or outright refuse to serve them. Businesses did this because their clientele expected it. A business that didn't segregate would lose business.
Allowing businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation opens the door to majority Christian areas to PROMOTE such discrimination by only doing businesses with those places that discriminate. Say Ace and Gary are a married couple in Palestine, TX, but the one Palestine auto shop decides it won't service cars for gay couples. Are they supposed to tow their car to Athens? What if no auto shop in Athens will take their business? What if the Tow Truck company in Palestine won't take their car?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
