It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

page: 15
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

What's a "protected class" ??

If discrimination laws state: "race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation", you've pretty much covered anyone and everyone who walks on two legs.

So which specific "protected classes" are you referring to ?




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Annee

And your statism is unhealthy for a free society.


I'm not Annee but I have a question.... free for who?


Free for everyone--not just protected classes, but everyone.


"Everyone" isn't covered by some. That would be "regressives". They don't want freedom. They want freedom their way. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. As you said freedom for EVERYONE.


George Orwell was quite prescient when he predicted the "Newspeak" of the socialist utopia--war is peace, etc.

Only in leftist newspeak is the state not forcing someone else to accommodate you "persecution." Only in leftist doublespeak does removing the freedom of choice from somone else make you "equal."

We live in Orwellian times indeed.


"Regressive" thinking. IDK why but it takes damn near a serious surgical procedure to get these people into the now. Seriously, the 50's have been done since the 70's.


But the 50's have been done for a long time and the fact that the only thing that the hysterical mobs have to get upset about is this non-event with this pizza guy is evidence that the world will end hysteria is incorrect. People making decisions for themselves will not cause the world to end and since Jim Crow was a set of governmental laws, those who claim to not want it back would limit state power, not want more.

Now please explain how this pizza guy, one of hundreds, makes anyone else less free. When he doesn't want to work, the customer is still free as he can go somewhere else. When the state forces him to serve the guy he is not free. What you really want to do is pick and choose who gets to be free to make their own choices.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Only in leftist newspeak is the state not forcing someone else to accommodate you "persecution." Only in leftist doublespeak does removing the freedom of choice from somone else make you "equal."

We live in Orwellian times indeed.


Only in Radical Right Wing newspeak is it considered "Persecution of Religion" by asking Religious People to treat everyone else as equals. Only in Radical Right Wing doublespeak does "Equal" mean treating an entire group of society as "Unequal" to everyone else.

We sure do live in Orwellian times indeed.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

For all the Not so good Christians out there this message is for you. Maybe you shouldn't be calling on everyone to attack the Evil Muslims or the Evil Gays until you clean up your own act. You look like Hippocrates.



Did they mention Brian Brown? He's such a charmer


This is just the first 3:



Facts

-- Testified in favor of a Russian law banning same-sex adoptions, saying that “Every child should have the right to have normal parents: a father and a mother”

-- Says homosexuality is "not logical" and "degrading to the human soul": "Well guess what — homosexuality IS a sin in the bible, and virtually every other sacred text out there. Engaging in homosexual sex IS considered by God to be sinful according to the teachings of most religions. And sin is NOT logical. Sin is deceitful, harmful and degrading to the human soul."

-- Claims same-sex marriage is “an attempt to deconstruct the very nature of reality—the very nature of what it means to be a human being”




--UPDATE - Internal memos obtained by the Human Rights Campaign reveal that Brown's organization, the National Organization for Marriage, was actively attempting to - in its own words - "drive a wedge between gays and blacks" and "provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing (black) spokesmen and women as bigots." A 2008-2009 Board Update also revealed that one of NOM's goals was "fanning the hostility" (p.12) between the LGBT community and the black community.


www.glaad.org...



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Only in leftist newspeak is the state not forcing someone else to accommodate you "persecution." Only in leftist doublespeak does removing the freedom of choice from somone else make you "equal."

We live in Orwellian times indeed.


Only in Radical Right Wing newspeak is it considered "Persecution of Religion" by asking Religious People to treat everyone else as equals. Only in Radical Right Wing doublespeak does "Equal" mean treating an entire group of society as "Unequal" to everyone else.


I say governmental force makes people unequal, you seem to think private individuals making their own decisions make you unequal. How by any stretch of logic does you and I being able to choose for ourselves to do business with each other or not make us "unequal?"



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



When the state forces him to serve the guy he is not free. What you really want to do is pick and choose who gets to be free to make their own choices.


I imagine plenty of white business owners said the exact same thing when they were 'forced' to serve a sandwich and a cup of coffee to a black person at their lunch counter.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I get it, you don't like Government involvement.

But tell me again who is it that is passing Legislation??? The Religious Folk or the LGBT folk???



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Forcing another to adopt the actions you see fit does not change their way of thinking ... and if their actions cause no harm to you or others then why attack them and cause a conflict that did not exist ... just walk away and allow each their own choices.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



When the state forces him to serve the guy he is not free. What you really want to do is pick and choose who gets to be free to make their own choices.


I imagine plenty of white business owners said the exact same thing when they were 'forced' to serve a sandwich and a cup of coffee to a black person at their lunch counter.



Reducto ad absurdum. Can you bring up an example from say, this century?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NavyDoc

I get it, you don't like Government involvement.

But tell me again who is it that is passing Legislation??? The Religious Folk or the LGBT folk???



Legislation that forces accommodation? That answer is rather clear isn't it?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NavyDoc

I get it, you don't like Government involvement.

But tell me again who is it that is passing Legislation??? The Religious Folk or the LGBT folk???



Now answer my question. How does me and you being free to decide to do business together or not make us "unequal?"



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



When the state forces him to serve the guy he is not free. What you really want to do is pick and choose who gets to be free to make their own choices.


I imagine plenty of white business owners said the exact same thing when they were 'forced' to serve a sandwich and a cup of coffee to a black person at their lunch counter.



Reducto ad absurdum. Can you bring up an example from say, this century?



...says someone who can't really come up with a good counter-argument. LOL- it was only 50 years ago.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

50 years ago, most of the people on ats were not even born yet.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



When the state forces him to serve the guy he is not free. What you really want to do is pick and choose who gets to be free to make their own choices.


I imagine plenty of white business owners said the exact same thing when they were 'forced' to serve a sandwich and a cup of coffee to a black person at their lunch counter.



Reducto ad absurdum. Can you bring up an example from say, this century?




Why ?

What difference does it make ?

It's the exact same scenario.

You're crying that businesses are losing their freedoms by being "forced" to serve a specific group of citizens.

How is that any different from every other time passed where groups of people had to be added to discrimination laws in order to stop businesses from discriminating against any specific group ?

It's the same broken record playing over and over... same complaints, same illogical reasoning... same bat time, same bat channel.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



When the state forces him to serve the guy he is not free. What you really want to do is pick and choose who gets to be free to make their own choices.


I imagine plenty of white business owners said the exact same thing when they were 'forced' to serve a sandwich and a cup of coffee to a black person at their lunch counter.



Reducto ad absurdum. Can you bring up an example from say, this century?



...says someone who can't really come up with a good counter-argument. LOL- it was only 50 years ago.


More like 60 years ago. You don't think society has not changed in 60 years? Really? The communication we are doing right now would have been Magic 60 years ago. You honestly think the vast majority of people will plunge us back into the dark ages without the force of government forcing us to get along? In today's economy? Never mind that Jim Crow was the government to begin with.
edit on 3-4-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



When the state forces him to serve the guy he is not free. What you really want to do is pick and choose who gets to be free to make their own choices.


I imagine plenty of white business owners said the exact same thing when they were 'forced' to serve a sandwich and a cup of coffee to a black person at their lunch counter.



Reducto ad absurdum. Can you bring up an example from say, this century?




Why ?

What difference does it make ?

It's the exact same scenario.

You're crying that businesses are losing their freedoms by being "forced" to serve a specific group of citizens.

How is that any different from every other time passed where groups of people had to be added to discrimination laws in order to stop businesses from discriminating against any specific group ?

It's the same broken record playing over and over... same complaints, same illogical reasoning... same bat time, same bat channel.


And you are using the same illogical arguement over and over again that not forcing people to give you stuff is "persecution."



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Legislation that forces accommodation? That answer is rather clear isn't it?


RFRA Laws, which is what we are talking about, isn't forcing accommodation. You didn't answer my question at all. Let's make it more clear for you.

Who is Passing RFRA Legislation??? Gay People or Religious People???



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Legislation that forces accommodation? That answer is rather clear isn't it?


RFRA Laws, which is what we are talking about, isn't forcing accommodation. You didn't answer my question at all. Let's make it more clear for you.

Who is Passing RFRA Legislation??? Gay People or Religious People???


You didn't answer my question first. Look back, I asked it first and you don't get to dodge it.

How does you and I being free to decide to do business together or not make us unequal?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



And you are using the same illogical arguement over and over again that not forcing people to give you stuff is "persecution."


Yup, the same illogical argument you're using over and over again that "forcing" businesses to sell their products to all citizens equally is somehow robbing businesses of their "freedoms".

Like I said, the white folk cried the same fowl play 50+ years ago.

And here we are, yet again.

Selective memory is funny that way.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Now answer my question. How does me and you being free to decide to do business together or not make us "unequal?"


Let's say you own the Cake shop. Your doors are open and ready for business. I show up to accept that offer but you deny me business but not the guy ahead of me or behind me.

By having your business open and ready to do business, that was your freedom to do so. My freedom was taking you up on your offer. So we are both freely doing business.

If you weren't open for business I can't force you to open your doors and serve me. You freely decided to open up to the public. I'm the public. So why not serve me??? We both have freely decided to do business together. You are wanting to back out after you've already made the offer to be open for business. I just took you up on your offer which you made of your own free choice.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join