34
   

Are all Republicans Idiots?

 
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Fri 9 Dec, 2016 04:19 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
I have noticed that many people who identify themselves as Christian, or Republican, or Righties are intolerant of the rights of others. Then they use the Orwellian argument that other people are intolerant because other people don't tolerate their intolerance. In other words, they play the victim card when they themselves are the victimizers.


What a crock of ****, this sounds like typical lawyer double speak. What kind of lawyer are you anyways? Ambulance chaser?

What's the difference between a dead lawyer in the road and a dead dog in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the dog...
Debra Law
 
  3  
Fri 9 Dec, 2016 04:46 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
I have noticed that many people who identify themselves as Christian, or Republican, or Righties are intolerant of the rights of others. Then they use the Orwellian argument that other people are intolerant because other people don't tolerate their intolerance. In other words, they play the victim card when they themselves are the victimizers.


What a crock of ****, this sounds like typical lawyer double speak. What kind of lawyer are you anyways? Ambulance chaser?

What's the difference between a dead lawyer in the road and a dead dog in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the dog...


Do you have anything of substance to offer the conversation?

Perhaps you would like to lend your sympathy to commercial bakers and photographers who claim they are victimized by statutes that prohibit discrimination in the provision of public accommodations. After all, the law doesn't tolerate their intolerance of and refusal to serve certain classes of persons who seek their business services/products.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 11:34 am
@Debra Law,
Quote:
Perhaps you would like to lend your sympathy to commercial bakers and photographers who claim they are victimized by statutes that prohibit discrimination in the provision of public accommodations. After all, the law doesn't tolerate their intolerance of and refusal to serve certain classes of persons who seek their business services/products.


I side with market forces, in todays day and age there are enough places out there to make cakes and take photo's, let it be known that someone won't bake a cake for a gay wedding and people will choose not to do business there. Targeting a business because they don't agree with you is not seeking your rights, it is seeking to take someone else's away. I wonder why those gay couples didn't target a muslim owned bakery.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 11:37 am
@Baldimo,
Just goes to prove that ignorance is alive and well. What concern does anyone else have on how others live their lives in the privacy of their own home that is based on love?
Baldimo
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 12:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Just goes to prove that ignorance is alive and well. What concern does anyone else have on how others live their lives in the privacy of their own home that is based on love?

That has nothing to do with forcing someone out of business because you want to bring what you do in your home to their business.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 02:45 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
That has nothing to do with forcing someone out of business because you want to bring what you do in your home to their business.


Explain how that's done.
Krumple
 
  -1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 03:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
That has nothing to do with forcing someone out of business because you want to bring what you do in your home to their business.


Explain how that's done.


Like this..

https://www.google.com/amp/www.oregonlive.com/articles/19424588/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_bakery.amp
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 03:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You go to a baker and ask them to bake you a cake for your gay wedding. They say no and you sue them to the point where they can longer operate their business, whether it's fines from the govt or fee's for the court case. What's hard to understand about that?
Krumple
 
  -2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 03:27 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

You go to a baker and ask them to bake you a cake for your gay wedding. They say no and you sue them to the point where they can longer operate their business, whether it's fines from the govt or fee's for the court case. What's hard to understand about that?


The left support a government that runs by threat of violence. It's funny that a business can be discriminatory only to a certain point. No shirt, no shoes, no service, but if you are gay they are forced to do business with you even if they don't want to.

Hitler says, "Make that cake!"
Debra Law
 
  3  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 03:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
That has nothing to do with forcing someone out of business because you want to bring what you do in your home to their business.


Explain how that's done.


I think he means eating cake. Cakes are beautiful and tasty. It is common knowledge that most people eat cakes and especially enjoy eating cake on special occasions. People eat cake in their homes and sometimes in restaurants and at special events. It's really a cool thing that people like to do, and many businesses cash in on that fact and create beautiful and tasty cakes and sell them to the consuming public. Businesses proclaim: "We're open to the public and we want you to buy our beautiful and tasty cakes at our place of business." That's called commerce.

And when a business opens it doors to the consuming public and makes money baking cakes by writing on them "Congratulations Mary and Gary", then anti-discrimination laws require them to write the same thing on a cake for Harry and Gary. Some people who own businesses however disapprove of Harry and Gary and want to deny them the same consumer services that are offered to other people. Some people who own businesses think they should be able to violate anti-discrimination laws with impunity because they erroneously think their personal prejudices are more important than the law. But, we are a nation of laws and not of men.

People who own businesses and who harbor personal prejudices have freedom of speech ... they can advertise on their websites and places of business that they disapprove of certain people and dislike serving them, but will nonetheless comply with the law forbidding discrimination. But, they don't want to actually say those things to the whole world because discrimination is frowned up and they may lose customers because of their unpopular views. They would like to engage in unlawful and unpopular discrimination without consequences. After all, most lawbreakers desire to conduct their lawbreaking as quietly as possible and not suffer the consequences. So the lawbreakers engage in Orwellian arguments and allege that consequences for violating the law somehow victimizes them and unfairly forces them out of business. The lawbreaking victimizers falsely allege they are victims when their wrongdoing is challenged. This fallacious argument flows from people who identify themselves as Republicans.

Thus, we are again presented with the title of this discussion thread: "Are all Republicans Idiots?" Personally, I don't think all of them are idiots. I think a lot of them are deceitful and engage in Orwellian sophistry and other fallacious arguments to justify their discriminatory, hateful, and unlawful conduct. They think the victims of their discrimination and hate should just walk away quietly and not avail themselves of any of the remedies provided by law.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 03:52 pm
@Debra Law,
Thank you, Debra. Concise and to the point.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 10:02 pm
@Krumple,
Good. Its what all religious racists should do .
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 10:13 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra, please accept my sincere props. Excellent post.
Debra Law
 
  4  
Tue 13 Dec, 2016 02:00 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

You go to a baker and ask them to bake you a cake for your gay wedding. They say no and you sue them to the point where they can longer operate their business, whether it's fines from the govt or fee's for the court case. What's hard to understand about that?


The left support a government that runs by threat of violence. It's funny that a business can be discriminatory only to a certain point. No shirt, no shoes, no service, but if you are gay they are forced to do business with you even if they don't want to.

Hitler says, "Make that cake!"


A ban on serving shirtless and shoeless persons relates to public health and safety and applies to all persons equally.

That is much different than a sign that says "no Jews". That is a ban on serving one segment of the population based on discriminatory animus.

Can you appreciate the difference?

Can you appreciate that the government has the authority to regulate commerce and that the government has a legitimate interest in prohibiting discrimination in the arena of public accommodations?

Enacting an anti-discrimination statute is not a "threat of violence". Why would you say such a thing? Consequences or penalties for breaking the law are not threats of violence. You are engaged in sophistry.

Hitler did not say "make that cake". Hitler said, "kill the Jews".

In other words, the business person who refuses to bake a cake for Jews (or other persons) based on discriminatory animus is the proverbial Hitler in this scenario.

Krumple: Your Orwellian argument again shows how persons on the far right of the political spectrum (i.e., mostly those who identify themselves as Republicans) falsely portray themselves as victims because the law attaches consequences to their unlawful conduct. Hitler was not a victim because there are laws against genocide. And bakers are not victims because there are laws against discrimination.





0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  3  
Tue 13 Dec, 2016 02:31 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
Perhaps you would like to lend your sympathy to commercial bakers and photographers who claim they are victimized by statutes that prohibit discrimination in the provision of public accommodations. After all, the law doesn't tolerate their intolerance of and refusal to serve certain classes of persons who seek their business services/products.


I side with market forces, in todays day and age there are enough places out there to make cakes and take photo's, let it be known that someone won't bake a cake for a gay wedding and people will choose not to do business there. Targeting a business because they don't agree with you is not seeking your rights, it is seeking to take someone else's away. I wonder why those gay couples didn't target a muslim owned bakery.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/


Baldimo: I cannot agree with your argument. You portray the lawbreakers as victims who have targets on their backs and fail to understand that our present-day availability of public accommodations comes from enforcement of anti-discrimination laws over the course of several decades. The efficacy of public accommodation laws over a long period of time is an argument in favor of continued enforcement, not the opposite.

Debra Law
 
  1  
Tue 13 Dec, 2016 03:08 am
@glitterbag,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Thank you, Debra. Concise and to the point.


glitterbag wrote:

Debra, please accept my sincere props. Excellent post.


Thank you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 13 Dec, 2016 11:15 am
@Debra Law,
We can see how insidious bigotry can be.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Tue 13 Dec, 2016 12:17 pm
@Debra Law,
This is where we will differ on the purpose of our govt and the laws they create. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding does not equal baking a birthday cake for a gay person. Do we know if they would refuse to bake them a cake simply because they were gay? No, we know they didn't want to bake a cake for a specific occasion they didn't agree with. So what do they do? Put them out of business via the laws of the land, break them and put them in poverty because of a single event that didn't even cause harm except for feelings... Did the couple end up getting a cake for their wedding from someone who was gay wedding friendly?

I noticed you ignored the story about the Muslim bakers.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Tue 13 Dec, 2016 12:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You use scary words CI. Insidious... People such as yourself see's such things in everyone who disagrees with you. People such as yourself, Debra and Rex scare me for the future of free speech and free will in this country.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Tue 13 Dec, 2016 01:49 pm
@Baldimo,
Here's the law(s) against discrimination.
The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?
by Jane Haskins, Esq., September 2007
Updated April 6, 2015
You’ve probably seen these signs at restaurants: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Or, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”
But what do these signs really mean? Can a business just refuse service to someone? Can they throw you out if you forgot your flip-flops on the beach? When is a refusal to serve someone justified and when is it discrimination that could lead to a lawsuit?
The issue made big headlines recently, when the state of Indiana passed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Gay rights activists immediately protested that the law was just a way to legalize discrimination against gays: any business owner could now refuse to serve them simply by citing a religious objection.
The law caused such a firestorm that the legislature hastily enacted an amendment clarifying that the law could not be used to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. But with other states also considering religious freedom laws, the issue isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.
What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?
At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.
The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.
The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.
So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 11:49:12