Missouri loves companies right to discriminate

[Ginobilly]

This is a great point, because on the other hand history has no examples of people being discriminated upon based on their race or other "born" traits.

yup. I've met "ex sexuals/tanny's" at AA/NA meeting and some of these guys are happily married with kids now after they snapped out of that lifestyle. Some of these guys said that they went through a supernatural transformation (i.e found Jesus/God/budda etc) and that they no longer get a hard on for other men anymore, and that they slowly started noticing the other gender. So what happens to your "gay rights", protected class status after you feel that your not gay anymore?

[Chinook]

Right, I'm sure there'd be tons of white people willingly shopping in a place where black people are forced to shop.

Yeah. Why not?

Riots are just a part of doing business in a free market!

You know, because the sit-ins and boycotts at the start of the movement were actually riots...

I know you didn't know about the Civil Rights Movement but what am I

There's little defense for you when you try to act like Congress forced the first businesses to integrate. , they didn't even force collegiate sports to integrate. You seem to have no idea how civil rights work.

[clambake]

lol

[Blake]

The second one was saying that you don't know what the courts have done to extend the Civil Rights Act. Their current test as Nono put it is that the business has to do 75 percent of its business interstate to fall under the commerce clause. Not likely that small businesses like a photographer are doing that, either buying or selling.

The first one is to counter your assumption that the Court is going to keep rolling out the Commerce Clause. The most recent time it was brought up, the Court rejected it.

So in effect, nothing. Worthless tangent.

[Blake]

Yeah. Why not?

Rofl

[Chinook]

So in effect, nothing. Worthless tangent.

So to recap, you're like "The Court has already decided the CRA extends to small businesses, so they just have to allow gays." I'm like, "The Court hasn't actually said anything about small businesses like photographers and bakers," and you're like, "That has nothing to do with what I said."

[Chinook]

Rofl

You're laughing at the idea of white people shopping at a store where black people shop. Is this real life?

But great job crawfishing about the Civil Rights Movement.

[Blake]

So to recap, you're like "The Court has already decided the CRA extends to small businesses, so they just have to allow gays." I'm like, "The Court hasn't actually said anything about small businesses like photographers and bakers," and you're like, "That has nothing to do with what I said."

And I'm like "you're going on a worthless tangent" and you're like "I'm the rubber you're the glue"

[Blake]

You're laughing at the idea of white people shopping at a store where black people shop. Is this real life?

No, we clarified already that this is only in your alternate reality

[Chinook]

And I'm like "you're going on a worthless tangent" and you're like "I'm the rubber you're the glue"

There hasn't been a rubber-glue statement in this line of discussion. It's just been you not wanting to admit that you didn't know what the Court has done to extend the Civil Rights Act to local businesses.

[Chinook]

No, we clarified already that this is only in your alternate reality

You were laughing this exchange:

Right, I'm sure there'd be tons of white people willingly shopping in a place where black people are forced to shop.

Yeah. Why not?

If you had a segregated store and an integrated store, do you really think that you wouldn't see white people ( , most white people) shopping at the integrated store? Was the Civil Rights Movement a black-only thing in your mind? Is the Gay Rights Movement an LGBT-only thing?

[spurraider21]

You're woefully ignorant on this issue, but because you have the liberal view, you assume it's the educated stance, and anyone who disagrees with you is just anti-intellectual.

[Spurminator]

Seriously?

Yes, they are seriously both legal. Why can someone refuse to photograph a reception with strippers but they can't refuse one with two men getting married? Those are both legal things that offend the sensibilities of the photographer.

[Chinook]

Yes, they are seriously both legal. Why can someone refuse to photograph a reception with strippers but they can't refuse one with two men getting married? Those are both legal things that offend the sensibilities of the photographer.

Some people can't wrap their heads around the fact that morality and vulgarity are subjective. They don't think about the objecting people or their rights. They only care about protecting their side.

[Blake]

There hasn't been a rubber-glue statement in this line of discussion. It's just been you not wanting to admit that you didn't know what the Court has done to extend the Civil Rights Act to local businesses.

Lol you even capitalized YOU in the "no, YOU are the one...."

[Blake]

You were laughing this exchange:



If you had a segregated store and an integrated store, do you really think that you wouldn't see white people ( , most white people) shopping at the integrated store? Was the Civil Rights Movement a black-only thing in your mind? Is the Gay Rights Movement an LGBT-only thing?

K, put an imaginary number on your imaginary store:

What percent of shoppers are willing white people on your average day?

Blacks? Other?

[Chinook]

Lol you even capitalized YOU in the "no, YOU are the one...."

That's a different line of discussion. That one was about a government alternative to a store, and this one is about the Civil Rights Act and how far the Commerce Clause can extend it. I said nothing in this line of discussion that is supposed to reflect your criticisms back at you. The store one, yes, because it's clear you were trying to throw stones when you were the actual offender. But don't blame me if you can't keep this straight in your head.

Again, though, I love how you gave up on trying to hide behind the Commerce Clause and resorted to trying to lol your way out of trouble.

[Chinook]

K, put an imaginary number on your imaginary store:

What percent of shoppers are willing white people on your average day?

Blacks? Other?

That's dependent on the store's location. In rural Mississippi, maybe not that many (45 percent-ish). In Cali or Austin, probably about 80 percent. Where are you going with this?

[Blake]

Yes, they are seriously both legal. Why can someone refuse to photograph a reception with strippers but they can't refuse one with two men getting married? Those are both legal things that offend the sensibilities of the photographer.

Are there kids at this wedding?

Just curious

[Blake]

That's dependent on the store's location. In rural Mississippi, maybe not that many (45 percent-ish). In Cali or Austin, probably about 80 percent. Where are you going with this?

Rofl you think a government store in Austin where the only place blacks can go for food will be made up of 80% white shoppers? Even with Walmart, Target, HEB and Piggly Wiggly being black free?

Rofl.this is so good. .

[Blake]

That's a different line of discussion. That one was about a government alternative to a store, and this one is about the Civil Rights Act and how far the Commerce Clause can extend it. I said nothing in this line of discussion that is supposed to reflect your criticisms back at you. The store one, yes, because it's clear you were trying to throw stones when you were the actual offender. But don't blame me if you can't keep this straight in your head.

Again, though, I love how you gave up on trying to hide behind the Commerce Clause and resorted to trying to lol your way out of trouble.

Lol hiding behind the Commerce Clause. You're all over the place.

[Chinook]

Rofl you think a government store in Austin where the only place blacks can go for food will be made up of 80% white shoppers? Even with Walmart, Target, HEB and Piggly Wiggly being black free?

Rofl.this is so good. .

In the interest of fairness, I took your question to mean what percentage of white people would shop there, rather than what percentage of shoppers are while. I apologize for that.

But yeah, I do think that the social pressure is great enough to where even people that would shop at the alternative stores over HEB and the like. The only reason why they wouldn't is if the alternative stores can't handle the volume of shoppers. But people don't like being called out as being racists, at least not most of them. The public shaming that would happen to people shopping at segregated stores would be astounding, and it would probably only take a week or so of boycotting the other stores to force them to change.

[Blake]

So to recap, you're like "The Court has already decided the CRA extends to small businesses, so they just have to allow gays." I'm like, "The Court hasn't actually said anything about small businesses like photographers and bakers," and you're like, "That has nothing to do with what I said."

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday it won’t take up a case in which a New Mexico photography business alleges its rights were violated when it landed in hot water for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony. - See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/....GENAuAwk.dpuf

You good now or you wanna keep on with this

[Chinook]

Lol hiding behind the Commerce Clause. You're all over the place.

You are hiding behind the Commerce Clause and your lack of understanding of the Civil Rights Act. That's why you've given up that whole line of argument. That's why you've given up almost every line of argument you've had (not that there are many). You think crawfishing while loling allows you to save face. You're not fooling anyone here.

[Blake]

In the interest of fairness, I took your question to mean what percentage of white people would shop there, rather than what percentage of shoppers are while. I apologize for that.

No problem. What's your updated percentage then.