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: 25
49
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Howdy! lol Fancy meeting you again....

I think the shoving down throat thing is merely people not wanting to be forced to do something which they choose not to. I know you already know this, and I really should have read more before responding anyway lol but I had to say HI!

While I tend to agree that a shop owner should be able to choose who they do business with and chances are, someone who is too picky will likely not be in business for long.

On the other hand, I would (if I were gay, member of a minority or whatever else) not appreciate being told I was subhuman (in effect) by some a-hole shop owner.

The basic question is: Should govt have the right to tell us who we can and cannot do business with? (excluding foreign govts which the govt most assuredly has the constitutional right to control our commerce with)

I tend to believe the govt should not get involved and that if there is an a-hole shop owner then simply shunning his or her business by those who care would be sufficient. I often decide that I will never return to an establishment for one reason or another. Seems odd that I, as a customer, can do that, but that I, as a shop owner, cannot?

I hate the concept of "protected groups or classes". I thought equal meant equal... ?

So if a bigoted, loud mouth white guy comes into my establishment to buy caramel coated widgets I can refuse to serve him, but cannot refuse to serve gay transexual martians (if they were a protected group)?

Yeah...that's certainly equality at play... ??




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You're still asking me to further and further justify my viewpoint and will not discuss anything I've brought to the table.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


It's one of the few laws I agree with the US Government on and about the only one that is true to what the free market is supposed to be.

Sorry to quote myself but I haven't seen anyone pro-right to discriminate reply to this:




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.


What say you?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Hey Bracken


You know, I could get it if folks in general were talking about "Dang it, I had to make those gay guys a cake."

Being "forced" to do something you don't really want to do is unpleasant, for sure.

But the context is too universal for that to be the case in general, don't you think? It comes up in everyone of these threads about homosexuality (which seems to be every post these days). Some one out of the blue says "I don't mind gays but I don't like it being shoved down my throat."

Like, somehow, it's offensive to see two guys or two girls walking together, obviously TOGETHER. Gods forfend they actually, you know, held hands or pecked one or the other on the cheek! In front of the KIDS no less.

I don't know. It's always tied into the "gay agenda" ... which is just about as vague. Oh sure, it's the "concerted effort by all media, radio, tv, movies, video games, etc. to make us accept homosexuality." Well, guess what, it's like gravity or sunlight or heterosexuality ... it's here, some people are, get over it.

I don't give two hoots down the holler, I guess is my problem. I really wish equal did mean equal. No better no worse. I really wish we could live in libertarian wonderland, where the free markets and cooperative effort just flows like milk and honey.

I don't see it though. Not out here in the real world, not in the microcosm of ATS. Always has to be someone who is right.

Good to hear from you again though. We need to find something else to scrap about soon.

edit on 16Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:28:40 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: Yep.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 





I hate the concept of "protected groups or classes". I thought equal meant equal... ?

So if a bigoted, loud mouth white guy comes into my establishment to buy caramel coated widgets I can refuse to serve him, but cannot refuse to serve gay transexual martians (if they were a protected group)?

Yeah...that's certainly equality at play... ??


Well I think the difference lay in the action. The loud mouth bigot can be thrown out for causing a disturbance which BTW he could be gay(no way to tell unless he claims it) but out of those things one is for the actions in your store.

Thee whole idea of boycotting a business sounds fine until you realize the laws are there so even minorities can be treated equal.

Hearing stories from my father on how the south would treat black minorities or even put pressure on businesses that served them( in other words if they didn't keep their store segregated then they could forget about being able to resupply locally). Opening the door to segregating in one fashion just invites mob rule mentality as demonstrated by our past.

Well I understand the concept and repercussions of such things.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


It's one of the few laws I agree with the US Government on and about the only one that is true to what the free market is supposed to be.

Sorry to quote myself but I haven't seen anyone pro-right to discriminate reply to this:




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.


What say you?


First of all, your comment is not correct. I have not put out a single pro-discrimination comment. My position is based on smaller, less intrusive government and freedom of choice, not support of discrimination. In fact, I have said several times in this thread that discrimination was stupid and illogical and not very nice.

That's a bit of an extreme example. Let's say Wal-Mart bannd gay people from shopping and then Costco sees a need in the market place fills it and undercuts Wal-Mart and they lose the market share. Of course you make the extreme assumption that a company like walmart would turn away customers with money--something that they wouldn't do in a million years. We wouldn't see what you propose. Now what we ARE seeing and this trend is increasing and getting more and more over time, IS further governmental encroachment into your personal life--your healthcare, how you do business , and who you talk to. You honestly believe that big government that has brought us NSA scandals, IRS abuses, etc. trustworthy to dictate how you run your business?

Now back to the government. By what you said above you agree with racial quotas and set asides in governmental organizations? Is that what you were addressing when you said this? (I want to be clear that I'm addressing the correct point.)



It's one of the few laws I agree with the US Government on and about the only one that is true to what the free market is supposed to be.


How is governmental racial discrimination anywhere near a "free market" action? How can you justify the state giving one person preference based on race (or anything for that matter) part of the free market in any way?

If you agree with it, are you not pro-discrimination and that you just think the discrimination you support is good? Isn't that a hypocritical stance? To support governmental discrimination if you happen to agree with the justification of the discrimination but would deny other people the choice to make such decisions for themselves? Wouldn't such a person be just as much a bigot, discriminating based on race as the aforementioned cake bakers who discriminated based on sexual orientation? Why is one form of bigotry acceptable but the other is not?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


First of all, that is a highly unlikely scenario, but nevertheless as good a one to use as an example as any.

I do feel that the govt should stay out of it at the level of an individual shop owner, since his impact would be insignificant.
I do feel that the law of "survival of the fittest" should reign supreme.

On this subject I am a bit on the fence about for the simple reason that if I were gay etc etc then I would feel horrible if I were turned down by a small business because of my lifestyle. So, perhaps there is a need simply to avoid the kinds of things we saw pre Civil Rights Act. On the other hand, we cannot pass a law against a$$hattery.

However, I fully, wholly and unequivocally am against "protected groups". What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. This is, I believe, a nation based on (at least in principle) equality, no?

Therefore the legislation should not be designed to protect a "protected group" but rather, everyone.

I have always believed that equal is equal. If I cannot exclude blacks from my country club, and I cannot name it "the white boys country club" for obvious reasons, then there should also not be an NAACP nor should there be a "Miss Black America" etc etc... Equal is equal right? It isn't, or shouldn't be equal is more than equal, no? (lol btw...I do not own a country club nor do I even belong to one)

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the philosophy behind it, but it seems to me that we are entering the arena of "the ends justify the means" territory. IE: Discrimination is ok as long as the govt says it's ok.

If we just provided for equality for all, wouldn't the eventual outcome be that? I have raised a couple of kids and I never believed in telling them "because I said so" or...because I do it doesn't mean you can. You lead by example, and our govt should not be promoting inequality in any form.






edit on 19-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: speeling korekshun



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


See my reply to Kali. I answer all (I think) your points there.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 




Some one out of the blue says "I don't mind gays but I don't like it being shoved down my throat."


I think I am going to leave that one alone!!!!! LOL

About the rest, well...good points about the commonality regarding gay vs otherwise and the general / universality of it all.

I can kinda see it from both sides. I value my freedom and liberty and resent that the govt would/could tell me to do something (or not to do) which did not harm another's person or property nor threat to do so.

It's hard to legislate morality. You can't really argue that laws against murder are legislating morality, or at least, that is not the sense I mean.

On the other hand...hard as it is for me to say it, I agree that there has to be something to prevent the massive systematic discrimination that took place pre Civil Rights Act. People can be jerks, and when people are jerks in large groups, then for sure something needs to be done.

I just happen to believe that those Rights apply to all. Equality, as guaranteed by the constitution, belongs to all. To do otherwise not only establishes a precedent for govt approved discrimination, govt decreed discrimination but also presents a very un-constitutional example to all regarding discrimination. I really dislike heavy handed govt, specially one that says you can't discriminate...umm...except in these ways.

Seems rather...wrong, to me.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

bbracken677

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.

I like both of those quotes. Also a big fan of the golden rule, which I think is at the heart of just about every system of morality in the world.

And I absolutely agree, not all Christians are intolerant a-holes. I wouldn't say most or many or lots. But some? Yes. Just like any other group of people.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Yeah...I hate govt mandated health insurance. My wife's insurance is over $700/month and AND! she is paying for babymaking coverage. lol Like that could happen


It seems to me that we are getting less and paying much more.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Yeah...I hate govt mandated health insurance. My wife's insurance is over $700/month and AND! she is paying for babymaking coverage. lol Like that could happen


It seems to me that we are getting less and paying much more.


You have been a breath of fresh air in this discussion. Reasoned, polite, intelligent. Thank you.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You really, really need to stop twisting my words if you want to continue this discussion with me. If you want to continue to discuss it with me pay attention closely to what I'm about to say. If you're looking to just one up someone that disagrees with you, then don't bother responding at all.


NavyDoc

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Now back to the government. By what you said above you agree with racial quotas and set asides in governmental organizations? Is that what you were addressing when you said this? (I want to be clear that I'm addressing the correct point.)



It's one of the few laws I agree with the US Government on and about the only one that is true to what the free market is supposed to be.



I very obviously was responding to bbracken. The law I'm referring to is Public Accommodations law.



First of all, your comment is not correct. I have not put out a single pro-discrimination comment.


I never said that you were pro-discrimination. Again clearly I said pro-right to discriminate. Huge difference.



That's a bit of an extreme example.


No it isn't. It could easily happen. Think Heartland Institute, ALEC, etc... these groups have huge influence on the business community and often tie social issues to it.



Now back to the government. By what you said above you agree with racial quotas and set asides


I don't. However I don't see the example you provided as such. It's a program targeted toward minority business owners but I don't see where it says white people can't apply. At any rate, I think such programs should be geared towards low income not race... after all it's poverty that's the disease.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You really, really need to stop twisting my words if you want to continue this discussion with me. If you want to continue to discuss it with me pay attention closely to what I'm about to say. If you're looking to just one up someone that disagrees with you, then don't bother responding at all.


NavyDoc

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Now back to the government. By what you said above you agree with racial quotas and set asides in governmental organizations? Is that what you were addressing when you said this? (I want to be clear that I'm addressing the correct point.)



It's one of the few laws I agree with the US Government on and about the only one that is true to what the free market is supposed to be.



I very obviously was responding to bbracken. The law I'm referring to is Public Accommodations law.



First of all, your comment is not correct. I have not put out a single pro-discrimination comment.


I never said that you were pro-discrimination. Again clearly I said pro-right to discriminate. Huge difference.



That's a bit of an extreme example.


No it isn't. It could easily happen. Think Heartland Institute, ALEC, etc... these groups have huge influence on the business community and often tie social issues to it.



Now back to the government. By what you said above you agree with racial quotas and set asides


I don't. However I don't see the example you provided as such. It's a program targeted toward minority business owners but I don't see where it says white people can't apply. At any rate, I think such programs should be geared towards low income not race... after all it's poverty that's the disease.


Fair enough. My sorry my bad. The way that your post was formatted looked like it was a response to my question.

That aside. The question still stands. Do you or do you not agree with federal and institutional racial discrimination?

Dammit. Sorry. The way your post came out the answer was not clear.

Just to clarify your point. Are what you are saying is that government discrimination is just as wrong and should be legislated agsinst just like private discrimination?
edit on 19-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I'm so glad we've gotten a lot of our "head-buttin'" out of the way ... I really enjoy your way of thinking.

In the real world, there are few absolutes. In political discussion, well, everything is absolute ... BS. LOL

You know I think we need to leave the Democratic/Republican dichotomies behind us. I believe in the American way that I was taught in the 70s and 80s. I believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Even for those who have gently divergences or rampant raging differences ... we used to be able to focus on the commonalities to get things done. Even in Congress, once upon a time.

I was very heartened to see the Kansas Senate take the action that it did. Barring some Christian Theocratic Revolution in this country, Marriage Equality will be the Law of the Land in a few short years, I believe. I'd like to think that would mean that we could all forget about the meaningless crap that the Media get's us all stirred up about (and that's left-wing, right-wing, chicken-wing media) and get down to business again and take care of this Country.

You won't be surprised to discover that I disagree about "protected classes" as it were. It's all too obvious that given the chance, we will find some reason, some aspect, some difference in our fellow citizens to try to exert control over. As long as that is true, there will have to be some level of government that keeps us from that natural tendency.

The whole Tribal thing will not be going away.

When I was growing up, I figured that we'd all be well educated, science-oriented, starship captains with flying cars by now.

Boy, did I miss that one.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I answered that in my last post.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... aYaUk

Looks like AZ is going to try the same thing. Personally I am going to sit back and watch, cause when one of the legal doors are open and it starts to be used to affect more than just one group, I am going to find it funny and laugh in hysterics as it is used against the very people who just passed this bill. And in that part of the country, there are some groups that would jump on this to get say revenge and this would be a way to do such.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Discrimination is wrong, period. In both government and private business aspects it creates second class citizenship, it is literally required to view someone as less than human to say it is okay to refuse service or goods. I posted the section of US Code a couple of pages back that deems a business offering goods or services to the public, Public Accommodations... in that they are legally regarded the same as government, in other words they must serve the entire public. That is the law. This shot-down Kansas Bill was a new law granting persons the right to exempt gays from Public Accommodations laws, in other words enabling people to declare gays second class citizens and not entitled to equal protection under the law.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Discrimination is wrong, period. In both government and private business aspects it creates second class citizenship, it is literally required to view someone as less than human to say it is okay to refuse service or goods. I posted the section of US Code a couple of pages back that deems a business offering goods or services to the public, Public Accommodations... in that they are legally regarded the same as government, in other words they must serve the entire public. That is the law. This shot-down Kansas Bill was a new law granting persons the right to exempt gays from Public Accommodations laws, in other words enabling people to declare gays second class citizens and not entitled to equal protection under the law.


Well good. It seems that we then agree that government racial preferences are just as wrong and should be legislated against as well, yes?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If they are discriminating yes. Shouldn't gays not be treated like second class citizens by businesses that offer goods and services to the public as well?



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join