Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dissention embrace's censorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    The question isn't what I would do, or what you would do, the question is does any individual have the right to turn down a customer?
    To me, the only color that matters is the color of the money. However, I was in the sales business for 12 years, people turned me down every day, should I have brought suit against them?
    Apparently so, if you believe the nonsense about not having the right to discriminate. Here in Colorado there are signs in every business stating that the business has the right to refuse service to anyone, unconditionally.

    As a consumer, you have the right to go shopping, but not the right to demand anything from any specific store. If you don't get what you want in one store, you have the right to move on and try others until you do.

    There are many sotres in Colorado that close on Sunday. As an agnostic, do I have the right to demand that they remain open on Sunday for my benefit because I should not be bound by their religious beliefs? No, I do not. Nor do I have the right to demand that they sell me things that violate their religious principles. Name of the biggest chain closed on Sunday? Hobby Lobby.

    How about if you want to buy an automatic assault rifle from a gun store and they refuse you? Do you really think you have a case? Do you really believe that you can demand to be sold a weapon against the judgement of the store owner? The principle here is exactly the same. You have the right to ask, period.

    Everyone, including store owners and staff, have rights just like customers do. The real problem is that the Entitled Generation have been trained to believe that they have superior rights and can simply demand whatever they want.

    Is it poor judgement on the part of this store owner? Probably, but that is for the market to decide, not the courts. Remember how that went in the Chik-Fil-A case?
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

      Is white supremacy comparable to being a homosexual?
      Only by you. The topic is free speech and does the constitution place restrictions on it.
      We know that the Supreme Court has agreed that art and journalism and music and comedy, burning the American flag is free speech. We know the publication of pornography is protected, as is parades and demonstrations.
      Fifty years ago the free speech movement started under the guise of promoting the exchange of ideas with out official, governmental interference.
      Either that principle was true, or it was an outright lie.
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

        So all this time you agree that the business owner had the right to deny service if the customer is part of a selective group that society has deemed "not nice" ?
        Who decided who or what is "not nice" ?
        Is this nice vs. not nice, protected by the 1st amendment?
        I have always stood by freedom of speech and freedom of choice.

        The issue is that LGBT people love freedom and honor but neo-Nazis and Klansman do not so we are talking about two totally different groups. One can as well say if a store owner sells cake to an isil member that will be the same thing as selling a cake to a clan member. So I would refuse to sell a cake to a Klansman or to an isil member but I would sell a cake to an LGBT couple

        It would be pro American to sell a cake to an LGBT couple. The man you talk about in the original post is anti-American because he refused to sell an item to an LGBT person
        Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
        Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

        George S Patton

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

          I have always stood by freedom of speech and freedom of choice.

          The issue is that LGBT people love freedom and honor but neo-Nazis and Klansman do not so we are talking about two totally different groups. One can as well say if a store owner sells cake to an isil member that will be the same thing as selling a cake to a clan member. So I would refuse to sell a cake to a Klansman or to an isil member but I would sell a cake to an LGBT couple

          It would be pro American to sell a cake to an LGBT couple. The man you talk about in the original post is anti-American because he refused to sell an item to an LGBT person
          The 1st amendment doesn't say your speech has to be pro American does it?
          Let's put this in your perspective, if you owned a shop that printed graphics on T-shirts and coffee cups and other promotional items and a shirt distributor orders 500 shirts with Che Guevara would you fill the order?
          What if the order was for 500 shirts with the "Betsy Ross " flag? According to Nike, that is offensive.
          We see citizens attacked for wearing a MAGA hat, sports wear companies stop production of items with a historic flag represented on them because it may offend one ex football player, and little is said.
          A private business owner declines an order that would offend his religious ideals and a government agency can without a trial order him to pay a fine and attend "sensitivity training ". I
          What's next, re-education centers where American citizens are sent to be indoctrinated?
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
            No business owner is obligated to participate in hate speech. Homosexuality is not hate speech.
            No, it's sex speech. Should a business be forced to make a product for polygamists? How about swingers? Pedophiles? What the LGBTPDQRSTUV community is in effect telling these businesses is you must accept our sexual proclivities and lifestyle whether you like it or not. That's what this comes down to.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              No, it's sex speech. Should a business be forced to make a product for polygamists? How about swingers? Pedophiles? What the LGBTPDQRSTUV community is in effect telling these businesses is you must accept our sexual proclivities and lifestyle whether you like it or not. That's what this comes down to.
              Yes to everything except pedophilia, because it's illegal. Again, I'd like to know why you guys keep comparing homosexuality to things like pedophilia, or white supremacy. Making a shirt for swingers doesn't mean you support their lifestyle, it just means that you're not going to discriminate against them.
              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
              - Benjamin Franklin

              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                The 1st amendment doesn't say your speech has to be pro American does it?
                Let's put this in your perspective, if you owned a shop that printed graphics on T-shirts and coffee cups and other promotional items and a shirt distributor orders 500 shirts with Che Guevara would you fill the order?
                What if the order was for 500 shirts with the "Betsy Ross " flag? According to Nike, that is offensive.
                We see citizens attacked for wearing a MAGA hat, sports wear companies stop production of items with a historic flag represented on them because it may offend one ex football player, and little is said.
                A private business owner declines an order that would offend his religious ideals and a government agency can without a trial order him to pay a fine and attend "sensitivity training ". I
                What's next, re-education centers where American citizens are sent to be indoctrinated?
                Its my view that free speech should prevail, the owners can do what they want. Im commenting on what I would do. I dont know much of Che nor do I take interest in him, but I would gladly produce 500 t shirts of the photo of Stalin, FDR and Churchill that I have at my place. Betsy Ross Flags sound ok to me. Neither of these two btw imo compare to Neo Nazis or ISIL members that might ask for a photo. And LGBT people are in the catagory of one asking for a tshirt company for a yankees t shirt, its totally normal. Asking for a pro LGBT shirt is the same as asking for a t shirt of the NY Yankees.

                Its an ISIL and Third Reich like approach for that owner you bring up in the OP to deny LGBT people, its anti American.
                Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                George S Patton

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                  Yes to everything except pedophilia, because it's illegal. Again, I'd like to know why you guys keep comparing homosexuality to things like pedophilia, or white supremacy. Making a shirt for swingers doesn't mean you support their lifestyle, it just means that you're not going to discriminate against them.
                  Mountain Man made a legitimate point, gun shop owners have been expected to turn down customer's bases on little more than intuition.
                  If a business refuses service bases on race or religion that is one thing. But take the case of the gun shop, if they refuse to sell a firearm or other weapon to an individual because they believe he is acting suspicious, maybe exhibitinga hostile attitude or is saying something indicating they wish to do harm to someone, and that individualjust happens to be gay, then what?
                  There are too many variables.
                  The thing that I don't agree with the most is giving the Human Rights Commission the power to level fines and require independent business owners to attend " sensitivity " classes,
                  I am required to do so as part of my employment. But does this commission have the power to require anyone to do So?
                  That sounds overbearing and an abuse of power.
                  Bottom line, you have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to demand consensus.
                  Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                  Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The business owner at the center of the story in the OP prints T-Shirts, which is a form of graphic arts. Not a baker, or a catering business. What if this art business was a sculpture?
                    The following scenario is in fact real, it involves a person I have known for the past 6 years. He is an art teacher and has sculptures all over the world. He has made sculptures of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, RFK, Harvey Milk, The Tuskegee Airmen, Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa, John the Baptist, Knut Rockne and Nelson Mandela. He has works on display in many parks, universities, museums, cathedrals and public buildings in several countries.
                    What if he refused a commission to make a bust of Adolf Hitler? One must remember that once a precedence is made it can be used by any party.
                    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                      Mountain Man made a legitimate point, gun shop owners have been expected to turn down customer's bases on little more than intuition.
                      If a business refuses service bases on race or religion that is one thing. But take the case of the gun shop, if they refuse to sell a firearm or other weapon to an individual because they believe he is acting suspicious, maybe exhibitinga hostile attitude or is saying something indicating they wish to do harm to someone, and that individualjust happens to be gay, then what?
                      Bad example, but for the sake of argument I'll run with it.

                      Then what? Nothing. They're not being turned down because of their sexuality. What if someone white or black was turned down for the same hostile behavior? That would be perfectly fine right? However, the gun shop owner cannot turn black customers away on the basis that they're black. Similarly they cannot turn people away on the sole basis that they're homosexual.

                      There are too many variables.
                      The thing that I don't agree with the most is giving the Human Rights Commission the power to level fines and require independent business owners to attend " sensitivity " classes,
                      I am required to do so as part of my employment. But does this commission have the power to require anyone to do So?
                      That sounds overbearing and an abuse of power.
                      Bottom line, you have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to demand consensus.
                      Again, laws don't demand consensus on anything. Look at it like this, do anti-discrimination laws that relate to race make people less racist? No. Common sense says that there are plenty of restaurant managers, store owners, etc who don't like black people. They are free to feel that way. However, when a black patron comes into their store, they cannot turn them away based on their race. This doesn't force them to like black people, it only forces them to not discriminate. No different for homosexuals. They have to be treated like everyone else. And keep in mind, there were people making the same argument about their right to refuse blacks as you are with homosexuals. It's the same battle, different group.

                      What if no one wanted to serve homosexuals? Then how free would that community be, if they couldn't participate in society like everyone else? How free were blacks when shop owners were allowed to discriminate? Would you be ok if you were turned away for being white? Would you argue that black business owners don't have to accept who you are or your lifestyle? If you wouldn't want that treatment for yourself, why would you be ok with it happening to anyone else?
                      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                        Bad example, but for the sake of argument I'll run with it.

                        Then what? Nothing. They're not being turned down because of their sexuality. What if someone white or black was turned down for the same hostile behavior? That would be perfectly fine right? However, the gun shop owner cannot turn black customers away on the basis that they're black. Similarly they cannot turn people away on the sole basis that they're homosexual.



                        Again, laws don't demand consensus on anything. Look at it like this, do anti-discrimination laws that relate to race make people less racist? No. Common sense says that there are plenty of restaurant managers, store owners, etc who don't like black people. They are free to feel that way. However, when a black patron comes into their store, they cannot turn them away based on their race. This doesn't force them to like black people, it only forces them to not discriminate. No different for homosexuals. They have to be treated like everyone else. And keep in mind, there were people making the same argument about blacks as you are with homosexuals. It's the same battle, different group.

                        What if no one wanted to serve homosexuals? Then how free would that community be, if they couldn't participate in society like everyone else? How free were blacks when shop owners were allowed to discriminate? Would you be ok if you were turned away for being white? Would you argue that black business owners don't have to accept who you are or your lifestyle? If you wouldn't want that treatment for yourself, why would you be ok with it happening to anyone else?
                        Your thesis depends on the principle that homosexuality is something everybody can readily identify. Frankly, that seems to undermine the argument that homosexuality is normal behavior and no different than heterosexuality.
                        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It's not based on that at all. It's based on your news story and the silly comparisons you've made throughout this topic.

                          So, are you claiming the store owner didn't know that the gay pride t shirt had to do with homosexuality?

                          If we look back in history there were many people who didn't agree with the lifestyle of black people. They too, fought for their so called freedom to refuse service to blacks. The only thing different about your argument is the group.
                          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                            Yes to everything except pedophilia, because it's illegal. Again, I'd like to know why you guys keep comparing homosexuality to things like pedophilia, or white supremacy. Making a shirt for swingers doesn't mean you support their lifestyle, it just means that you're not going to discriminate against them.
                            Your argument is, that flaunting your sexuality or sexual preferences in public are something that should be normalized and legalized. For a company that is uncomfortable with that-- essentially someone could order pornographic or near pornographic literature, T-shirts, a cake, whatever your version of this would force the company to make it.

                            If that's the case, then the company has a right to put a disclaimer on their product pointing out that the statement it makes does not reflect the views of the company or its owners, employees, etc. The customer gets their product, the company makes it clear to those viewing that product that they don't necessarily agree with the content. That way everybody gets fair and equal.

                            If the gay, or whoever disagrees with the idea of a disclaimer, they are free to go elsewhere and find a company that won't put one on the product, or agrees with their POV. That's again fair and equal to all parties.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              Your argument is, that flaunting your sexuality or sexual preferences in public are something that should be normalized and legalized. For a company that is uncomfortable with that-- essentially someone could order pornographic or near pornographic literature, T-shirts, a cake, whatever your version of this would force the company to make it.

                              If that's the case, then the company has a right to put a disclaimer on their product pointing out that the statement it makes does not reflect the views of the company or its owners, employees, etc. The customer gets their product, the company makes it clear to those viewing that product that they don't necessarily agree with the content. That way everybody gets fair and equal.

                              If the gay, or whoever disagrees with the idea of a disclaimer, they are free to go elsewhere and find a company that won't put one on the product, or agrees with their POV. That's again fair and equal to all parties.
                              The key difference here is that you guys continue to relate homosexuality to vile things. Like white supremacy, pedophilia, etc. I see homosexuality as no different than being black or white. The gay pride shirt referenced in the news article is not the equivalent of pornography or white supremacy.

                              What if companies started putting disclaimers on their products that depicted white people? Stating that their company doesn't agree with whites or their lifestyle. No problem?

                              Of course though, you don't view homosexuals as highly as you do heterosexual whites in the first place. That's why it's ok for you to treat them differently. If you're starting with such a low view of them, then there's really nothing I can say that would break your prejudice.
                              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                              - Benjamin Franklin

                              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                                The key difference here is that you guys continue to relate homosexuality to vile things. Like white supremacy, pedophilia, etc. I see homosexuality as no different than being black or white. The gay pride shirt referenced in the news article is not the equivalent of pornography or white supremacy.

                                What if companies started putting disclaimers on their products that depicted white people? Stating that their company doesn't agree with whites or their lifestyle. No problem?

                                Of course though, you don't view homosexuals as highly as you do heterosexual whites in the first place. That's why it's ok for you to treat them differently. If you're starting with such a low view of them, then there's really nothing I can say that would break your prejudice.
                                Equality before the law means exactly that. You're the one here equating homosexuality with racial profiling, which is meaningless because religions are not questioning skin color, but some do not accept homosexuality. You just compared apples and carburetors.

                                And BTW, black people already denigrate whites every chance they get, and they frequently complain about the racial make-up of everything from motion pictures to advertising. You might want to look around every once in a while and see what is actually going on. Again, you're going in the wrong direction.

                                Mind if I compel you to do something extremely distasteful to yourself? And sue the crap out of you if you refuse for any reason? Personally, I would want you to refuse me because I have no right to compel you to do anything against your will, let alone dictate what you must create and/or sell.

                                Here's something for you to chew on, however; all a gay couple has to do is purchase a wedding cake, go down to any average store and buy two grooms/brides/whatevers and put them on the cake themselves. So why didn't they? Because they deliberately set out to cause trouble.

                                The lawsuit shows clearly that they are looking to create a public incident to advance their cause, and compelling a business owner to be their patsy is unacceptable.

                                Now, go find a gay bakery and demand that they make you a large cake for a public gathering that openly bashes gays, and be sure and sue them if they refuse, which I fervently hope they do. Then call the ACLU and see if they will help you for free. (No, they won't.)
                                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X