Discussion about hot topics trending today

[garhkal]

Aaaanndd you still don't understand.
You DO have every right to tell a private business what to do as long as they operate as a -PUBLIC SERVICE-. I can't tell blacks or whites to keep out of my mall, or my shop, because I am a PUBLIC ACCESS business. A church, as a non profit CAN do this, but a business cannot.
What will it take to get this through your head?
Public companies are covered by secular LAW, and secular law says a business open to the public CANNOT discriminate based on race, religion or gender. They are not PRIVATE CLUBS.

Then why do we keep seeing so many businesses put up "No firearms allowed" signs? Is that not discriminating against law abiding CCW Permit holders?

[Gatefan1976]

Then why do we keep seeing so many businesses put up "No firearms allowed" signs? Is that not discriminating against law abiding CCW Permit holders?

Yes, it is.
I don't like your gun laws, but for as long as you have them, and you have the permits..........

[Gatefan1976]

aaaaand you STILL don't understand that the government telling a PRIVATE business owner how to run his business is NOT a good thing....thus we seem to be at a bit of an impasse...because you seem to have no problem with a society where the government micromanages every facet of what should be PRIVATE free market commerce

The impasse is you don't understand that even privately owned businesses are -public places-. They are not like a home or a non profit, or even a corporate headquarters or factory, they operate within the public sphere because they are open to the -public-. when dealing with the -public- businesses have rules they must follow.

form where I'm sitting you are totally and completely blind to just what kind of society you have when a person can come up to you as a PRIVATE business owner and say "serve me or face the high-handed power of the Great and Glorious state

A civil society? A democratic society?

you have NO inalienable right whatsoever to the goods and services of a PRIVATELY RUN business...the only court such businesses can be tried in, at least if your society is a free society, is the court of the free market, meaning that should a private business owner be employing business practices that We the Consumer don't like....we have every right to organize a boycott....but that's IT

1: You have NO inalienable rights -PERIOD-. The constitution you hold up is a document of the GOVERNMENT it is the GOVERNMENT that gives you your rights. The Bible is a document of RELIGION, it is the RELIGION that informs you on what those rights could or should be.
You can claim "inalienable rights" as long as you want, but you only have them so long as no one -takes- them from you, or society will punish those who violate them (by enforcing the will of the great and glorious state)
2: Free trade does not have morals, it has a goal, to maximise profit. Why is "X money" somehow different from "Y money"? Does money get "gayed up"? If the goal is indeed -free trade-, why allow personal issues affect that free trade?

Economics is a course required in high school...which I did quite well in...you're only mad because my education in basic economics wasn't based on the fallacies of Alfred Maynard Keynes

No, I'm not mad at all, I just don't think you went into anything beyond -basic- economics. I did quite well in music, but that does not mean I am a musician, or even have the ability to read sheet music beyond the basics.

and when employers for simple clerical office work are requiring to have at least a bachelor's, if not a masters degree, you have a problem

Don't they have the right to discriminate based on education? If you have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation which has -nothing- to do with the transfer of money, don't they have the right to set -their- minimums?
Or, is this discrimination that has impacted you?

a full-blown college education is just fine for big jobs like engineers, computer programmers, doctor's dentists, etc.

for everything else, a high school education should be sufficient, maybe post-HS trade school education for things like massage therapy, plumbing, HVAC, etc.

Sure, University should not be a requirement for a trade, have trade schools as an alternative, or apprenticeships. I have no issue with that at all.

.....but it's not.....because the people who run regular colleges and universities are using the money they make from their exorbitant tuition fees to exercise undue influence over the job market and edge out people with a basic HS and/or post-HS trade school educationby enticing employers to require some modicum of regular college education

I'm sorry, does being discriminated against upset you?
The workforce is a free market, right?
It's PRIVATE right?
That's your real impasse, you want to -allow- a business to discriminate against -patrons-, but have an issue with -allowing- businesses discriminate based on education.
Here's the thing, some jobs actually -require- that education, the exchange of money requires nothing more than a product, and a willing buyer.

oh....and I know your left-wing education has brainwashed you in this regard.....but for the umpteenth time....using a gun in defense of yourself and your property is an entirely PROPER use of force, killing an innocent unborn BABY is NOT...nice try at comparing apples to oranges though

So, the crux of your argument is -innocence-. What the law decree's as innocent, and what "X"'s morals decree as innocent are two very different things. I'm not the one comparing apples and oranges.

what would I do if a bunch of liberal elites decided Catholics weren't worthy of being served....depends on whether they are running a private business or not, as since I've said before and will keep saying...I have no inalienable right whatsoever to a PRIVATE business owner's goods and services....thus I would simply take my business to a different PRIVATE establishment.

You have no other establishment to go to, all of them can do it. Anything you might need, you need to drive out of state because NY "doesn't serve your kind" anymore.
NONE

...however if liberal elites in the GOVERNMENT were trying to deny Catholics real inalienable rights as spelled out in the Constitution, such as the right to vote, the right to due process of law, the right to a jury trial, the right to peacefully assemble (which actually is being done as Christians in general have been banned from certain venues by other state governments)....I can just about guarantee that there would be a Second American Revolutionary War by morning

Replace the word Catholic with GAY.

This is the slippery slope you're heading down, allowing the government into every facet of what should be private free market commerce....it's NOT a good thing but you're too blind to realize that fact

No, I am not.

and since you also seem to be developing short term memory loss as to the unfounded statements you made (accusing me of simply wanting the poor to rot and being 100% supportive of Trump:



That's you making the unfounded statement accusing me of thinking I don't want the poor to be given a hand up

It has little to do with being poor, that's an example.

That's you implying that I support Trump 100%...which I do not

Quoting a post where I specifically say you don't support trump 100%, hmm, ok......

as for your 3rd unfounded statement implying that I did not wish the same for Clinton or Obama....flat out wrong....no matter how much their asinine opinions and policies annoyed me I never wished them ill

It was a question, not a statement, hence the "?"
Additionally, I did not say you wished them ill, I asked if you wished them the best.

from where I'm sitting you're laboring entirely under the notion that something being legal makes it right, which is precisely the kind of belief I expect from a person who doesn't mind being ruled by a totalitarian state.

I don't know what you are sitting on, but I attack the law -all the time-. What you are missing is the recognition of what the law is "NOW", and where the law "SHOULD" be, and what the penalties will be.

...and you still also seem to be stubbornly laboring under the false notion that using lethal force against a home invader is just as bad as committing a cold-blooded pre-meditated murder

Using lethal force is only not a criminal act because the law -allows- it as a defence. If you shot someone and the law did not provide that defence, you would be charged with manslaughter, and if you put up signs saying "house protected by a gun", I could legally argue premeditation to raise it to murder.
Having an abortion is not a criminal act -period- because the law -allows- for it to be a legal act. You -WANT- it to be murder (a legal definition) because that's what your morals say.
You do not understand how the law and morals are separate beasts.

but please.....do continue to make unfounded accusations about me....each one will be met with equal vitriol

Show me your "vitriol"

[Gatefan1976]

OH!!
And for the record, the only reason I know who Saul Alynsky, Keynes and the rest of your "leftist bogeymen" are is because you brought them up, no view of mine is based on their positions in the slightest.

[Gatefan1976]

Nice try at denial, but if it isn't dumb luck, how does odds come into the picture? Or does study of "odds and statistics" give you a way to determine who is born into what circumstances, with what genetics and so forth?

Thanks for proving my point.
Odds and stats don't prove anything insofar as where you get popped out on this planet, but they are -very- good in determining what will happen given that basis.

If so, I think you had better go into hiding, because I think there are going to be a whole lot of people who got the short end of that stick pissed off at you.

Meh, I could become a republican and not give a toss instead.

Absolutely not. But you don't have the right to discriminate for me, either, nor do you have the right to put my rights above those of another.

Question:
How does allowing gay people to fully engage in commerce threaten you?
Question:
How do gay people willing to serve in the military, when millions will not, threaten you?
Question:
How are you being discriminated against?
Can you vote?
Can you serve?
Can you work?
Can you chase the American dream?
Can you be served anywhere?

[mad_gater]

The impasse is you don't understand that even privately owned businesses are -public places-. They are not like a home or a non profit, or even a corporate headquarters or factory, they operate within the public sphere because they are open to the -public-. when dealing with the -public- businesses have rules they must follow.

A civil society? A democratic society?

1: You have NO inalienable rights -PERIOD-. The constitution you hold up is a document of the GOVERNMENT it is the GOVERNMENT that gives you your rights. The Bible is a document of RELIGION, it is the RELIGION that informs you on what those rights could or should be.
You can claim "inalienable rights" as long as you want, but you only have them so long as no one -takes- them from you, or society will punish those who violate them (by enforcing the will of the great and glorious state)
2: Free trade does not have morals, it has a goal, to maximise profit. Why is "X money" somehow different from "Y money"? Does money get "gayed up"? If the goal is indeed -free trade-, why allow personal issues affect that free trade?

No, I'm not mad at all, I just don't think you went into anything beyond -basic- economics. I did quite well in music, but that does not mean I am a musician, or even have the ability to read sheet music beyond the basics.


Don't they have the right to discriminate based on education? If you have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation which has -nothing- to do with the transfer of money, don't they have the right to set -their- minimums?
Or, is this discrimination that has impacted you?


Sure, University should not be a requirement for a trade, have trade schools as an alternative, or apprenticeships. I have no issue with that at all.

I'm sorry, does being discriminated against upset you?
The workforce is a free market, right?
It's PRIVATE right?
That's your real impasse, you want to -allow- a business to discriminate against -patrons-, but have an issue with -allowing- businesses discriminate based on education.
Here's the thing, some jobs actually -require- that education, the exchange of money requires nothing more than a product, and a willing buyer.



So, the crux of your argument is -innocence-. What the law decree's as innocent, and what "X"'s morals decree as innocent are two very different things. I'm not the one comparing apples and oranges.

You have no other establishment to go to, all of them can do it. Anything you might need, you need to drive out of state because NY "doesn't serve your kind" anymore.
NONE

Replace the word Catholic with GAY.

No, I am not.

It has little to do with being poor, that's an example.

Quoting a post where I specifically say you don't support trump 100%, hmm, ok......

It was a question, not a statement, hence the "?"
Additionally, I did not say you wished them ill, I asked if you wished them the best.

I don't know what you are sitting on, but I attack the law -all the time-. What you are missing is the recognition of what the law is "NOW", and where the law "SHOULD" be, and what the penalties will be.


Using lethal force is only not a criminal act because the law -allows- it as a defence. If you shot someone and the law did not provide that defence, you would be charged with manslaughter, and if you put up signs saying "house protected by a gun", I could legally argue premeditation to raise it to murder.
Having an abortion is not a criminal act -period- because the law -allows- for it to be a legal act. You -WANT- it to be murder (a legal definition) because that's what your morals say.
You do not understand how the law and morals are separate beasts.


Show me your "vitriol"

guess what pal.....this is why you're having trouble distinguishing unjust laws from just laws...unjust laws are what result from following moral relativism....this moral relativism is why you're trying to rationalize away abortion as being less than the cold-blooded murder that it actually is

just laws, on the other hand, are based on the far more common sense recognition of an objective moral reality, in this area the objective moral reality that it's wrong to murder ANY human person(s) in cold blood

and you're also having trouble understanding just what PRIVATE PROPERTY means....PRIVATE PROPERTY means that whoever OWNS the property makes the rules....and even though members of the public can access a PRIVATELY OWNED business...that property still counts as PRIVAEL OWNED property, thus it is the owner of said PRIVATELY OWNED property that makes the rules under which HE as an individual PRIVATE Property owner conducts business on that property....again...if you don't like the way a PRIVATE individual or group of individuals conducts business...either find another PRIVATE business whose owner conducts business in a manner more to your liking....or start your own business in direct competition to his and let the free market determine the winner in that contest

Free market competition is what drives economic growth. You seem to be wanting to build a society where everyone just sits around a bonfire smoking a peacepipe singing "Kumbayah" and "everything is grand".....I'll tell ya right now.....that kind of society is NEVER gonna happen...because life is inhernetly unfair.

The socialism you think is so grand hasn't done one single solitary thing to lift anyone out of poverty and in fact just created more poverty. All it ever does by its very nature that is even remotely equal is the equal sharing of abject misery.

Free market principles are the engines of economic growth. Not leting the government stick its big nose in where it doesn't belong, not using the government to rob an individual business owner simply because this business owner operates under business practices you don't like, and not letting government set the termsunder which private individuals conduct their business.

By contrast socialism is the stalled-on-a-hill engine of economic stagnation then eventually regression. Whereas private business owner could set the rules under which they could conduct business, now government controls how private business is conducted, now government bails out private businesses either on request (via corporate welfare) or because government falsely says it's "too big to fail," now people who don't agree with how a private business owner runs his business can use the power of the socialist state to forcibly take all the money that business owner ever made

Free market capitalism is not fair. Competition by its nature isn't fair. Free market competition means that sometimes a business whose practices you don't like will stay in business. And conversely businesses whose practices you agreed with might have to close up shop. It's not fair. But it's a heck of a lot more fair than letting the almighty government set the rules by which private business on private property is conducted and turning the whole society into a poverty-ridden socialist hellhole.

[Gatefan1976]

guess what pal.....this is why you're having trouble distinguishing unjust laws from just laws...unjust laws are what result from following moral relativism....this moral relativism is why you're trying to rationalize away abortion as being less than the cold-blooded murder that it actually is

Moses comes down from the mountaintop and proclaims "thou shall not kill", and the people at the bottom say "Oh...... we never thought of that......"
If the only reason you are being moral is because you think that "someone or something" is watching you, ready to punish you for your transgressions, what does that say about the strength of your morality?

just laws, on the other hand, are based on the far more common sense recognition of an objective moral reality, in this area the objective moral reality that it's wrong to murder ANY human person(s) in cold blood

Sharia law has an objective moral reality as well.

and you're also having trouble understanding just what PRIVATE PROPERTY means....PRIVATE PROPERTY means that whoever OWNS the property makes the rules....and even though members of the public can access a PRIVATELY OWNED business...that property still counts as PRIVAEL OWNED property, thus it is the owner of said PRIVATELY OWNED property that makes the rules under which HE as an individual PRIVATE Property owner conducts business on that property....again...if you don't like the way a PRIVATE individual or group of individuals conducts business...either find another PRIVATE business whose owner conducts business in a manner more to your liking....or start your own business in direct competition to his and let the free market determine the winner in that contest

Please, -read- the civil rights act, specifically title 2
I'll make it easy for you:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii...accommodations

Free market competition is what drives economic growth. You seem to be wanting to build a society where everyone just sits around a bonfire smoking a peacepipe singing "Kumbayah" and "everything is grand".....I'll tell ya right now.....that kind of society is NEVER gonna happen...because life is inhernetly unfair.

Lolwhut??
Why, because I don't want people to be discriminated against?
That's a serious, and stupid leap of......."logic" to be sure.

The socialism you think is so grand hasn't done one single solitary thing to lift anyone out of poverty and in fact just created more poverty. All it ever does by its very nature that is even remotely equal is the equal sharing of abject misery.

When have I said socialism is grand? I am far more democratic (as in the political principles, not the party) than socialist. Socialism as a governing system has -some- good elements, and I'm more than willing to poach those good elements and use them in a democracy. If I could find poachable elements from an autocratic society, I'd do that as well, but I don't see any really worth poaching.

Free market principles are the engines of economic growth. Not leting the government stick its big nose in where it doesn't belong, not using the government to rob an individual business owner simply because this business owner operates under business practices you don't like, and not letting government set the terms under which private individuals conduct their business.

Have you read the act yet?

By contrast socialism is the stalled-on-a-hill engine of economic stagnation then eventually regression. Whereas private business owner could set the rules under which they could conduct business, now government controls how private business is conducted, now government bails out private businesses either on request (via corporate welfare) or because government falsely says it's "too big to fail," now people who don't agree with how a private business owner runs his business can use the power of the socialist state to forcibly take all the money that business owner ever made

So, JFK was a socialist?

Free market capitalism is not fair. Competition by its nature isn't fair. Free market competition means that sometimes a business whose practices you don't like will stay in business. And conversely businesses whose practices you agreed with might have to close up shop. It's not fair. But it's a heck of a lot more fair than letting the almighty government set the rules by which private business on private property is conducted and turning the whole society into a poverty-ridden socialist hellhole.

You do know that capitalism is not a governmental system, right?

[Annoyed]

Please, -read- the civil rights act, specifically title 2
I'll make it easy for you:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii...accommodations

Did you read it?
I'm not going to stir this pot up again, but this is too obvious to ignore.
Typically, this argument revolves around the gay couple who wanted the cake....

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

I don't see anything about sexual orientation in that statute.

[Gatefan1976]

Did you read it?
I'm not going to stir this pot up again, but this is too obvious to ignore.
Typically, this argument revolves around the gay couple who wanted the cake....


I don't see anything about sexual orientation in that statute.

Yes, I read it.
So, YOU are the protected class, the person with a sexual orientation is not.
But, you see giving others -the same rights YOU have because of the Civil Rights act- as giving them "Unequal Rights". To give them what you have NOW is "bad"
Yet all the time you bang on about how you are "unprotected".

[mad_gater]

Did you read it?
I'm not going to stir this pot up again, but this is too obvious to ignore.
Typically, this argument revolves around the gay couple who wanted the cake....


I don't see anything about sexual orientation in that statute.

not to mention that this is an excerpt from the civil rights act.....not the Constitution of the United States of America...and as I recall the CRA has undergone numerous challenges as to whether or not its usurpation of the private property rights of the business owner is in keeping with the Constitution, particularly with the Constitution's guarantees of the inalienable right to freedom of association (the radical concept that private individuals, including those who operate privately funded and privately owned businesses, can freely choose who and what they wish to associate with)

[Gatefan1976]

not to mention that this is an excerpt from the civil rights act.....not the Constitution of the United States of America...and as I recall the CRA has undergone numerous challenges as to whether or not its usurpation of the private property rights of the business owner is in keeping with the Constitution, particularly with the Constitution's guarantees of the inalienable right to freedom of association (the radical concept that private individuals, including those who operate privately funded and privately owned businesses, can freely choose who and what they wish to associate with)

You can take that up with the SCOTUS who ruled it constitutional under the Commerce clause.

[Annoyed]

Yes, I read it.
So, YOU are the protected class, the person with a sexual orientation is not.
But, you see giving others -the same rights YOU have because of the Civil Rights act- as giving them "Unequal Rights". To give them what you have NOW is "bad"
Yet all the time you bang on about how you are "unprotected".

I'm sick of counting the potholes on this road, we've been down it too many times.
Private businesses ARE allowed to choose whom they serve. This has been established by the fact that nightclubs and bars are allowed to pick and choose whom they allow to enter. And that has been going on for DECADES. So I'm pretty sure it is legal.
Do I have the right to demand to be admitted, regardless of the bar's policy? No. If the club decides that I am not the type of person they want to serve, there is nothing I can do about it.

How is that different from a business that doesn't want to provide services for some potential customers? Answer: It's not. The only difference is who is being excluded.

Again, I'm sick and tired of this discussion, and I'm not going to engage again. I just wanted to point out the glaring omission in the material you cited.

[Falcon Horus]

then please explain to me....oh wise one, just how all these pre-mature babies are walkin' around, most of them leading fairly well adjusted lives? if you assertion that they would've died because their brains were underdeveloped is to hold any water?

Because a pre-mature baby (and I happen to know one who was born at 6 months in the car on the way to the hospital) have a fully developed brain. A baby with no brain or an underdeveloped brain (the figurative size of a walnut) cannot survive a pre-mature or any other birth as it has no harddrive to function, and depending on the severity of the underdevelopment a baby may survive but what kind of life depends on the lack of brainmatter and what parts have developed. So, whether they are full members of a society -- I'd say in the US that could count as manner to have a serious healthcare problem.

Have an example of a brain defect: Anencephaly

You try working on a computer that has no harddrive from where all its commands come from. Your brain is the operating system of your body. It's where all the synapses are fired from.

I don't think it's a secret that I absolutely disagree with the modern effort to scrub anything related to the confederacy from our society. People should have the right of free expression. For me, the Confederate flag represents defiance of misused authority, not racism. And I have have the right to display one if I choose.

I see confederate statues are being taken down, but should therefore not disappear.
They can still sit snug in a museum on American history considering it's an important part of your history.

I saw a video of people taking a statue down themselves and breaking it in the process. That's breaking of public property and the instigators should get fined for it too. I understand the anger these statues can cause but perhaps leave the taking down to the professionals.

And frankly, even nut jobs such as the Klan & other white supremacists have the right to speak their gibberish, and I shall give it all due consideration. None, that is.

That's what free speech is about. Garhkal will think I'm making this up but even the ACLU has defended the right in regards to their freedom to free speech.

But these guys are way out of line, and frankly an embarrassment to others of us on the right.

They far crossed the line.

Really? Ramming a crowd of people who disagree with you with your car isn't cool. I hope they throw the book at whomever did that.

If this had been a Muslim, you'd have labelled it terrorism and blamed radical Islam.
If this had been a BLM march, there would have been police in riotgear.

Are you going to label it terrorism?
Or just an unfortunate incident?

YEa i got home from gaming this evening and mom told me about that whole incident..

Domestic act of terrorism, you mean.

Whitewashing history isn't a good thing. Banning statues and flags of historical events that depict us at our worst as left-wingers are wont to do in the South because the sight offends people means that you are eliminating reference points to our history. And people need to learn from history, both good and bad, if they are to have a shot at not repeating it.

Considering how well you're currently doing at repeating pre-war Germany, I'd say the statues aren't going to make much of a difference.



You're already repeating the past.

Private businesses ARE allowed to choose whom they serve.

It's ridiculous how easy this is for you, isn't it.
Never having to worry about not getting served. Or turned away because someone thinks you're not worth it.

[Annoyed]

If this had been a Muslim, you'd have labelled it terrorism and blamed radical Islam.
If this had been a BLM march, there would have been police in riotgear.

Are you going to label it terrorism?
Or just an unfortunate incident?

-----

It's ridiculous how easy this is for you, isn't it.
Never having to worry about not getting served. Or turned away because someone thinks you're not worth it.

1: I think I've adequately expressed my displeasure at that idiot. You can call it whatever you want, terrorism is fine. But they need to throw the book at that idiot.

2: Back in the day, never once did I get selected to enter such bars/clubs. My attitude was "fine, I'll go someplace else and spend my money."

[mad_gater]

Because a pre-mature baby (and I happen to know one who was born at 6 months in the car on the way to the hospital) have a fully developed brain. A baby with no brain or an underdeveloped brain (the figurative size of a walnut) cannot survive a pre-mature or any other birth as it has no harddrive to function, and depending on the severity of the underdevelopment a baby may survive but what kind of life depends on the lack of brainmatter and what parts have developed. So, whether they are full members of a society -- I'd say in the US that could count as manner to have a serious healthcare problem.

Have an example of a brain defect: Anencephaly

You try working on a computer that has no harddrive from where all its commands come from. Your brain is the operating system of your body. It's where all the synapses are fired from.



I see confederate statues are being taken down, but should therefore not disappear.
They can still sit snug in a museum on American history considering it's an important part of your history.

I saw a video of people taking a statue down themselves and breaking it in the process. That's breaking of public property and the instigators should get fined for it too. I understand the anger these statues can cause but perhaps leave the taking down to the professionals.



That's what free speech is about. Garhkal will think I'm making this up but even the ACLU has defended the right in regards to their freedom to free speech.



They far crossed the line.



If this had been a Muslim, you'd have labelled it terrorism and blamed radical Islam.
If this had been a BLM march, there would have been police in riotgear.

Are you going to label it terrorism?
Or just an unfortunate incident?



Domestic act of terrorism, you mean.



Considering how well you're currently doing at repeating pre-war Germany, I'd say the statues aren't going to make much of a difference.



You're already repeating the past.



It's ridiculous how easy this is for you, isn't it.
Never having to worry about not getting served. Or turned away because someone thinks you're not worth it.

hmmmm...killing an unborn child because this unborn child has an underdeveloped brain....guess we'd better start "aborting" all the people walking around with Down Syndrome and other mental retardation issues then

I do agree about sticking confederate flags and statues of confederate soldiers into a historical museum to be publicly displayed....I don't agree with what appears to be a concerted push to scrub them altogether