No. I have argued it is immoral to force your morals on others. I have stayed away from the law. I used freedom of speech as an example to show how it is moral to condone immoral behavior (freedom of speech is something everyone on the board believes in and thus that's what I used). If you want I can use something else such as a married man running out on his pregnant wife. This is immoral yet everyone believes it should be condoned. I am a computer programmer by trade. You are wrong by a mile. I did answer your question. I have answered this question at least 3 times in this thread No. A business should be able to deny their services to whomever for whatever reason just as a customer should be able to deny their business to whomever for whatever reason. Morally there is no difference between the business and the customer. Just two parties making a deal.
There is a huge difference. One is individual choice. The other is denying free choice to individuals.
Your analogies do not hold water. They are so flawed and misguided as to be completely and totally irrelevant to this discussion. You can keep repeating them, but people will continue to tell you your logic is flawed and the example is irrelevant.
Customers denying their dollars to a business that discriminates is based upon that business engaging in repugnant behavior. Businesses refusing service is based on sexual orientation. Being a jerk does not invoke Constitutional protection (except from being jailed for speaking your mind). Race, religion and sexual orientation does invoke protection. This is a very important distinction.
could be based on anything. Could be based on not liking the sexual orientation of the owner. So if I, as a customer, don't do business with some private business because of the owner's race, religion and/or sexual orientation, should the private business be protected? Maybe I should be forced to do business with them? Maybe I should be thrown in jail?
Again, your analogy is flawed, misguided and irrelevant. This is the problem with libertarians...everything is argued in the abstract with disregard to experience, history and reality.
LOL Where do you come up with this horse****? Society determines what is moral and immoral and what rises to a level of immorality that is damaging enough that it requires it to be deemed illegal. Yes, that is exactly how laws are made and why they're made. How ridiculous. Nonsense. Whose rights does ****ing a sheep violate? Whose rights does walking down the street naked violate? Whose rights does walking around with a gun on your hip violate? Whose rights are violated by underage drinking? HUH?
Strong proponent of marriage between a man and woman, but seriously these kind of laws are idiotic...There is no reason to discriminate a person for any reason. Hate the sin, and not the person. Expecting the federal courts to strike down the law...
Sorry... I guess I should have said your comparison between two things, on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation and clarification, is flawed, misguided and irrelevant.
you guys are getting trolled hard by tallanvor. nobody can legitimately be this ignorant and idiotic.
Yes, threatening people is illegal. Calling fire in a crowded theater, illegal. Slander, illegal. Welcome to America.
in none of those scenarios is speech banned. In both scenarios, a person is held accountable for the consequences of what is said. For example, its only slander if the victim can prove there were damages caused from said statement. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is only illegal if it leads others into a dangerous scenario.
I don't view it as a troll, but rather a true reflection of the GOP/right wing political position. Regardless of whether it is legal or even right, he is arguing for this to defend a political position. It is interesting to note that if one were to replace the term "same sex couple" with "African American couple", or "Catholic couple" or "aged couple" in the Kansas law the republican/right wing is supporting here, tallanvar would have to support it as well. Then complain when all of the groups he has discriminated against vote in large numbers for Democrat candidates.
congratulations to Republican State Senator Susan Wagle for doing the right thing for the people of Kansas. ladies and gentlemen, I give you Tennessee State Bill 2256- http://openstates.org/tn/bills/108/SB2566/documents/TND00047627/
Idk if it's been said yet but this is probably a response to several cases where the gays keep going to small, Christian-owned business and get denied service. This case, for one, in New Mexico where a lesbian couple sued a husband-and-wife run photography studio for denying them service for their wedding. It's looking like a bullying tactic. I'm OK with the law for personal services. If you're just one guy doing the work and it's rather intimate like photographs and you really don't want to be there, you shouldn't be compelled to. But if it's a big, staffed establishment where you're not really that exposed from the objectionable item, such as a restaurant, then, everybody should be able to avail of your services.
Oh my god. If something is illegal then it's banned. Not only are you trying to re-write history, you're trying to re-write basic definitions. ban 1. officially or legally prohibit. slan·der 1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
