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.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 24
49
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

ausername
I personally find homosexuality to be an abhorrent lifestyle choice, I don't think it is productive or healthy, I don't believe it should be promoted or a part of education for children....

BUT, I live in a country that was fought for and built upon a base of freedom and liberty. It doesn't matter what I think or believe, I am in no position to judge anyone. When all is said and done here I would rather be on the side of freedom. If their lifestyle choices are wrong that is between them and their God, or whatever they believe in. What consenting adults do in their sex lives is none of my business.

I will respect, accept and tolerate them, because I live in a free country.

Just my honest opinion.


I don't disagree with anything you said. I honestly don't care the sexual preference of those I serve. My point is, and has been all along, is that tolerance and freedom of choice go both ways.




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Affirmative Action doesn't discriminate against anyone. It does not require a certain amount of x employees and y employees, what it does is offer financial incentives for hiring non white males.


So if a business is run by all "blacks" and has a lower cost of doing (subsidies) business does that mean that his all "white competitor" next door has an equal profit margin? I think Labor costs amount to about 20-30% of outgoings. Will the Affirmative Action subsidised shop drop the price to send the all "white" shop broke or keep the price artificially high to "gouge" the public and their competitors.
Down under in our "backwater" Australia we live with the effects of the USAs dumping policies. Like the USA we have little manufacturing plant left.
I may be a bit "USA politically challenged/ignorant" but can someone please explain to me how under your Constitution your Government is Insolvent yet dances to the tune sung by the Military Manufacturers/Big Pharma/Monsanto? Oh and lest I forget the "Too big to fail BANKS"

(just to set the record clear I am against codifying by Law how people should run their business. As to race - it was as recent as 15 years ago that our rural politicos/candidates were buying our Indigenous Aborigines kegs of beer on voting day.)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Affirmative Action only offers financial incentives in the form of tax breaks for hiring minorities etc. Now as far as me being an Anarchist and supporting authoritative methods to prevent discrimination... We don't live in an Anarchist system, we live in a Representative Republic with Capitalism as our economic model. You cannot have Capitalism without authority to keep people from exploiting others, so while I advocate for less authority as far as the penal system and the surveillance state, since people refuse to actually engage in a free market because too many whiners want the system rigged in their favor and to keep people from having to act like adults by conducting business with the entire public, you leave little choice but to go with authority. It's too bad that people would rather act like children and being the only kid on the block with a ball, refusing to play with anyone unless they get to win every time and always excluding little Jimmy because one time he put on his moms lipstick.

Here's what it comes down to. Let's say WalMart decides they are going to exclude gay people from buying anything in their shop. So the grocery store down the road says aha! and decides to charge more for food products because in most areas of the nation you have about 2 places to buy groceries from, WalMart or one local competitor. In that sense the free market is not functioning in it's capacity to regulate prices because WalMart has caused a demographic to be less served than all other demographics.

Now let's take it further, WalMart, masters of the supply chain states that they will not buy from suppliers that sell to any buyers that do business with gay people. Now gay people will literally starve to death. If one law in one State allows business owners to discriminate against gays and refuse them service, then you absolutely have paved the way for it to be carried out to the extreme.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Affirmative Action only offers financial incentives in the form of tax breaks for hiring minorities etc. Now as far as me being an Anarchist and supporting authoritative methods to prevent discrimination... We don't live in an Anarchist system, we live in a Representative Republic with Capitalism as our economic model. You cannot have Capitalism without authority to keep people from exploiting others, so while I advocate for less authority as far as the penal system and the surveillance state, since people refuse to actually engage in a free market because too many whiners want the system rigged in their favor and to keep people from having to act like adults by conducting business with the entire public, you leave little choice but to go with authority. It's too bad that people would rather act like children and being the only kid on the block with a ball, refusing to play with anyone unless they get to win every time and always excluding little Jimmy because one time he put on his moms lipstick.

Here's what it comes down to. Let's say WalMart decides they are going to exclude gay people from buying anything in their shop. So the grocery store down the road says aha! and decides to charge more for food products because in most areas of the nation you have about 2 places to buy groceries from, WalMart or one local competitor. In that sense the free market is not functioning in it's capacity to regulate prices because WalMart has caused a demographic to be less served than all other demographics.

Now let's take it further, WalMart, masters of the supply chain states that they will not buy from suppliers that sell to any buyers that do business with gay people. Now gay people will literally starve to death. If one law in one State allows business owners to discriminate against gays and refuse them service, then you absolutely have paved the way for it to be carried out to the extreme.


Yet, the federal government ahs racial preferences in contracting. If you are a minority owned business, you have preference in gaining governmental contracts--based solely on race. Would you also agree that government racial discrimination, especially since the US government is much, much larger than Walmart, just as wrong?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Affirmative Action only offers financial incentives in the form of tax breaks for hiring minorities etc. Now as far as me being an Anarchist and supporting authoritative methods to prevent discrimination... We don't live in an Anarchist system, we live in a Representative Republic with Capitalism as our economic model. You cannot have Capitalism without authority to keep people from exploiting others, so while I advocate for less authority as far as the penal system and the surveillance state, since people refuse to actually engage in a free market because too many whiners want the system rigged in their favor and to keep people from having to act like adults by conducting business with the entire public, you leave little choice but to go with authority. It's too bad that people would rather act like children and being the only kid on the block with a ball, refusing to play with anyone unless they get to win every time and always excluding little Jimmy because one time he put on his moms lipstick.

Here's what it comes down to. Let's say WalMart decides they are going to exclude gay people from buying anything in their shop. So the grocery store down the road says aha! and decides to charge more for food products because in most areas of the nation you have about 2 places to buy groceries from, WalMart or one local competitor. In that sense the free market is not functioning in it's capacity to regulate prices because WalMart has caused a demographic to be less served than all other demographics.

Now let's take it further, WalMart, masters of the supply chain states that they will not buy from suppliers that sell to any buyers that do business with gay people. Now gay people will literally starve to death. If one law in one State allows business owners to discriminate against gays and refuse them service, then you absolutely have paved the way for it to be carried out to the extreme.


When I hear Christians talk about how the "mark of the beast - 666" will operate, it sounds very much like what you said. You could almost argue that heterosexuality is the (gasp!) MARK OF THE BEAST


In fact, if you mix up the letters in "heterosexuality", you get "lousy heater exit" which could mean a false promise to avoid hell! Ooooh...

Ps - you also get "literates hex you" which is what many are afraid of in Kansas.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'd have to see the actual policy you're talking about. Are you going to insist on continuing to address nothing else I post relating to the topic of the OP or are we just going to argue about Affirmative Action? And judging by the leash WalMart has the US government on I don't know that it's accurate to say that it's smaller.
edit on 2/19/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

NavyDoc
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Since the site has no "ignore button" I have no problem ignoring an obnoxious jerk, and I was doing this in this thread until you came after me. Since every time we interact, most likely both being "alpha" personalities, it degenerates to this I have no problem with a mutual agreement of ignoring each other. Thus, please take you dishonesty, hypocrisy, and ignorance elsewhere.


I'll be right here. Feel free to interact with me or not. The facts are obvious regardless of your megalomania. Really, look up there, does that last post seem reasonable to you? Be honest. Obsession would be a very light expression of what many will see there I think.

If you feel I'm being ill-mannered, please, report me, report the thread, report whatever you wish. Let's see what an objective opinion might render.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Self deleted after thinking better of it.
edit on 12Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:36:12 -060014p122014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Just because the media says everyone accepts a group of people doesn't mean that everyone does. It is politically correct to accept gays that doesn't mean people do. Most people in the US are religious contrary the what the media wants. So it is no surprise that a state that is very religious would pass a law like that. You don't like it don't go there.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
You guys can see the slippery slope though right? Just like in gun control and banning soft drinks etc. Okay to ban gays if you want. Next...okay to ban mixed couples...next okay to ban transsexuals...next okay to ban jews...next okay to ban Koreans and on and on and on. There's an endless list of people that other people disapprove of. The danger is this getting out of hand.

The second issue is...Is it right. Morally right to ban someone based on lifestyle of religious belief? the answer of course is that it is not. This, the United States of America, is not a religious dictatorship or a theocracy.

Let's play devils advocate and say okay. let's have a Christian theocracy....so who sets the rules there...Catholics? Methodists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Protestants? hmmmmm



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Seems to me the government of which you speak is fully capable of creating laws making one race rise above another without any help from a citizen. Is this not what hate crimes are all about? A person of color is placed in a higher value because they were murdered by a white person, but when a white is murdered by a black it's not even mentioned in the charges.

Why is it I am always the one be told to be tolerant? Why can't a gay be tolerant? Why is it in this country now when you earn something you no longer earned the right to care and control that something. When you earn a chunk of money, the government wants to tell you how to spend it, how to save it, without regard to how they take it from you and do the same.

Why when I have earned the cost to take a huge chance and start my own business I now have to provide jobs to certain percentages of minorities? Is this not my business? I worked for this I earned it, and now I have to provide medical insurance to an employee, match their SS, provide workmans comp, etc.?

I earned it and every politician is figuring out a way reduce the benefits of what I earned and give it away to garner additional votes. This simple take it from me and redistribute it, this simple dictate of who I have to serve, this simple telling me what I have to tolerate will end when the earners say I have had enough.

I find it interesting that the only time equality works is when it's in someone else's favor.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'd have to see the actual policy you're talking about. Are you going to insist on continuing to address anything else I post relating to the topic of the OP or are we just going to argue about Affirmative Action? And judging by the leash WalMart has the US government on I don't know that it's accurate to say that it's smaller.


I'm sorry if it seems off topic, but I think that it is and part of the broader discussion at hand. My point is, that we accept discrimination in one hand but want the law to ban it on the other hand. I think the question of why is discrimination acceptable to you (or anyone) the voter in one case, but not the other?

Why can the government discriminate, but not individuals? Why is one form of discrimination (Hooters having only female waitresses for example) acceptable but not wanting to bake a wedding cake for gay people not?

What is pertinent to the topic is that many types of discrimination, both by business and government, is quite acceptable, but others are not. If all discrimination was intolerable, then why should the University of Michigan law school be permitted to use race as a deciding factor for admission?




SBA’s 8(a) Business Development program can help qualifying minority-owned firms develop and grow their businesses through one-to-one counseling, training workshops, and management and technical guidance. The program also provides access to government contracting opportunities, allowing these businesses to become solid competitors in the federal marketplace.





Certification can significantly help your business gain access to government contracts. Whether you are just starting a business or your company is already established, you can drastically benefit from these "set aside" contracts. There are several government agencies at the local, state or federal level which offer certification.





The section 8(a) business development program is statutorily authorized to provide a vehicle through which Federal agencies can make prime contract awards to small businesses owned and controlled by individuals certified as socially and economically disadvantaged. Federal agencies are authorized to set aside specific requirements for competitions limited to 8(a) participants, and sole source awards may be made to participants


www.mbda.gov...




Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer concurred in judgment, but stated that they did not subscribe to the Court's belief that the affirmative measures in question would be unnecessary in 25 years.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the University's "plus" system was, in fact, a thinly veiled and unconstitutional quota system. Chief Justice Rehnquist cited the fact that the percentage of African American applicants closely mirrored the percentage of African American applicants that were accepted.



So, as you can see, the federal government discriminates on awarding very lucrative contracts based on race. The University of Michigan, a state, taxpayer (not private) school discriminates for admissions based on race. If taxpayer funded institutions are permitted to discriminate would it not be a tad bit hypocritical for us to demand that private individuals not be allowed to discriminate?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

MarlinGrace
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Seems to me the government of which you speak is fully capable of creating laws making one race rise above another without any help from a citizen. Is this not what hate crimes are all about? A person of color is placed in a higher value because they were murdered by a white person, but when a white is murdered by a black it's not even mentioned in the charges.

Why is it I am always the one be told to be tolerant? Why can't a gay be tolerant? Why is it in this country now when you earn something you no longer earned the right to care and control that something. When you earn a chunk of money, the government wants to tell you how to spend it, how to save it, without regard to how they take it from you and do the same.

Why when I have earned the cost to take a huge chance and start my own business I now have to provide jobs to certain percentages of minorities? Is this not my business? I worked for this I earned it, and now I have to provide medical insurance to an employee, match their SS, provide workmans comp, etc.?

I earned it and every politician is figuring out a way reduce the benefits of what I earned and give it away to garner additional votes. This simple take it from me and redistribute it, this simple dictate of who I have to serve, this simple telling me what I have to tolerate will end when the earners say I have had enough.

I find it interesting that the only time equality works is when it's in someone else's favor.


Honestly, Marlin, I have no idea which of my posts you're responding to, so I'll answer in general.

The American system is designed to be as equitable as possible both on an individual basis and collective one. Laws which attempt to redress previous wrongs are a notable example of legislation that can be directed to the benefit of one group, but only to try to balance out what has happened, or to level the playing field, so to speak.

I know of no case where a murder was not even "mentioned in the charges." Can you provide an example?

Gays have had to be "tolerant" of imprisonment, public embarrassment, loss of life and property, for many years in this country. Again, not sure of the context in which you feel that someone hasn't been tolerant of you; more detail?

As to the rest of your post ... why wouldn't you want to provide that to your employees? Making your place of business attractive in terms of benefits offered would probably pull in more qualified folks. Why wouldn't you factor those costs into your "cost of doing business" ... that's what many employers have done for years. Why wouldn't you want your employees to have medical care when they needed it so that they can be more productive for you in your business, minimize absences, etc?
edit on 14Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:00:01 -060014p022014266 by Gryphon66 because: Misspelled the other posters name, dang it.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

amazing
You guys can see the slippery slope though right? Just like in gun control and banning soft drinks etc. Okay to ban gays if you want. Next...okay to ban mixed couples...next okay to ban transsexuals...next okay to ban jews...next okay to ban Koreans and on and on and on. There's an endless list of people that other people disapprove of. The danger is this getting out of hand.

The second issue is...Is it right. Morally right to ban someone based on lifestyle of religious belief? the answer of course is that it is not. This, the United States of America, is not a religious dictatorship or a theocracy.

Let's play devils advocate and say okay. let's have a Christian theocracy....so who sets the rules there...Catholics? Methodists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Protestants? hmmmmm


But the state banning guns or soft drinks by law is a lot different that a private individual determining who they will or will not do business with. A law forbidding that choice to a private individual is like the laws forbidding the choice to drink a soft drink or owning a gun, not the other way around. I agree, there is a slippery slope and that is progressing towards a bigger, more intrusive nanny state.

Is it right or wrong? Who am I to judge? Why do people get to push their morality on others in one case--to force them to serve gays, but not in the other case, to let them not serve gays? Who gets to decide? I agree that not doing business with someone because they are gay or an atheist or a Christian or whatever is stupid, but part of being free is the choice to do stupid things.

Let's not have a theocracy. Rather than that, let's let people make their own decisions for themselves: religious, not religious, gay, straight, black, white--let's give individual citizens the freedom to decide what they want to do for themselves.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
"Honestly, Marlin, I have no idea which of my posts you're responding to, so I'll answer in general.

The American system is designed to be as equitable as possible both on an individual basis and collective one. Laws which attempt to redress previous wrongs are a notable example of legislation that can be directed to the benefit of one group, but only to try to balance out what has happened, or to level the playing field, so to speak.

I know of no case where a murder was not even "mentioned in the charges." Can you provide an example?

Gays have had to be "tolerant" of imprisonment, public embarrassment, loss of life and property, for many years in this country. Again, not sure of the context in which you feel that someone hasn't been tolerant of you; more detail?

As to the rest of your post ... why wouldn't you want to provide that to your employees? Making your place of business attractive in terms of benefits offered would probably pull in more qualified folks. Why wouldn't you factor those costs into your "cost of doing business" ... that's what many employers have done for years. Why wouldn't you want your employees to have medical care when they needed it so that they can be more productive for you in your business, minimize absences, etc?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know what you mean, it's been a hot post for sure.

You really don't believe our system was designed to be equitable, are you speaking of results or opportunity? Not that the US system isn't the best, it is, but equitable it isn't. There never has been a level playing field and there never will be. There is always someone who is willing to sacrifice more, work harder, to achieve more. But why take from them, they earned it and being fair why would you incentivise those that do less by taking from one and giving to another. It didn't work in the first settlement and won't work now.

So then it's ok to change the law, in order to be more tolerant, that you would rather create additional opportunity to one race over another or maybe one sexual preference over another? I just love the idea of legislating tolerance, is it working after all these years? No more than legislating morality. The world is never going to be a kind place, at least in this old farts lifetime.

I was referring to when was the last time you saw a hate crime against a white person?

The point of my business is, it's not my choice. It's forced on me by government mandate. Would I do it to be competitive? Of course if getting good people required this, then yes I would. Everyday incentive is lost in this country trying to balance things in terms of equality or opportunity. We are killing what was once the greatest economy in the world, all in the name of fairness.

Thanks for an intellectual conversation they are getting somewhat rare anymore. Nice to know people can still disagree about something without pointing fingers, name calling, or just plain nastiness. This is the way tolerant people should behave.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
This thread is really running amok. If I owned a bakery and produced wedding cakes, why would I care who bought the cake unless the customer/society crammed down my throat a social viewpoint that I do not agree with. That would cause me to feel as though my back is against the wall and I would instinctively revolt.

Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Asians, etc. are allowed to patronize white establishments across the board. However, how many whites are welcomed into establishments owned by Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, unless these business people specifically target the upwardly mobile? Yeah, I know, leaving myself open, but I should be allowed to express my opinion also.

If I have a cafe and for what ever reason I did not want to serve four legged, green eyed pixies, I should be allowed to refuse to do so. The four legged, green eyed pixies can seek meals elsewhere. All involved will be more comfortable and we will have fewer food fights.

Sigh



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MarlinGrace
 


Call me an idealist, Marlin, but yes, I do still believe in the American Way that I grew up with. Was it perfect then? No.

Is it perfect now? Heck no!

But, here's the thing, we can hypothesize and theorize about perfect systems that are unlike ours: for example for me, communism or libertarianism, but those are either untried or failed. What we have has evolved over time to be very fair, or perhaps equitable, to a great many, moreso, at least, than any other politico-economic system in the world.

No one likes paying taxes ... but what's the alternative? We have to work together to accomplish any thing of substance, that's obvious. One of the best ways that we've found to work together is a democratic republic. The will of the People is applied through the channels of the executive, legislative and judicial. The fact that we have (currently) allowed the system to become contaminated with career politicians, rather than statesmen and stateswomen, whose only desire is to be re-elected ... well, that's on Us.

Paying taxes provides for the infrastructure that we have ALL benefited from, even those of us who have started our own companies, built them up, suffered, sacrificed, etc. We sell our products and services to others; we use the roads, power-grid, postal system, banking system, etc., to conduct our business. It didn't happen in a vacuum.

That doesn't mean we should be taxed into oblivion. That doesn't mean that folks should be allowed to get on assistance and stay there for their whole lives. Believe me, that gripes my constitution as much as anyone. BUT, to hypothesize that we need to scrap our government and go to some kind of ... other system, is to me, ludicrous.

That's me, and I'm rambling. It is good to have a decent conversation; thanks!



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

searching411
This thread is really running amok. If I owned a bakery and produced wedding cakes, why would I care who bought the cake unless the customer/society crammed down my throat a social viewpoint that I do not agree with. That would cause me to feel as though my back is against the wall and I would instinctively revolt.

Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Asians, etc. are allowed to patronize white establishments across the board. However, how many whites are welcomed into establishments owned by Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, unless these business people specifically target the upwardly mobile? Yeah, I know, leaving myself open, but I should be allowed to express my opinion also.

If I have a cafe and for what ever reason I did not want to serve four legged, green eyed pixies, I should be allowed to refuse to do so. The four legged, green eyed pixies can seek meals elsewhere. All involved will be more comfortable and we will have fewer food fights.

Sigh


Searching: Honestly, I keep hearing variations of the "pushing/shoving/cramming down my throat" complaint.

What in the world are you talking about when you say that? Honest question.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Ramcheck
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 


That is exactly the sort of argument I would expect to hear from one of those conservatives who are inherently wrong all the time, to be honest.

"You say I am wrong, then you yourself are non-democratic." That, is the lamest argument ever.


This is exactly the sort of comment I would expect to hear from one of those liberals who are inherently wrong all the time, to be honest

(did you see what I did there?)

lol ... sorry, that last line was just begging to be said, seeing as how that seems to be the cool thing to say (??)

I find it funny how some liberals make sweeping all inclusive statements like the above and, for the life of them, cannot understand how totally hypocritical they are. Might as well be saying that all blacks like fried chicken and watermelons.

Besides...inherently wrong? By whose definition, yours?

I suppose you agree that the govt should spend money until it is completely bankrupt with zero fiscal responsibility?

I suppose you agree that the govt should penalize those who work hard in order to reward those who are too lazy to work? (deny that is happening, I dare ya)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

magicrat
reply to post by Christian Voice
 

You chose to believe in your God. You're entitled to that, and I hope that choice brings you wonderful things. But anyone who uses their chosen religion to deny the humanity of any other person is insulting all of humanity. In my opinion, anyway.


By definition it is also not a very christian attitude. I believe it goes like this: "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

or maybe it would be: Judge ye not others, lest ye be judged yourself.

At any rate, not all Christians are intolerant a-holes.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join