Wile E. Coyote
New member
There is no hades.I didn't want to imply that you were in Hades!
toldailytopic: Should business owners have the right to not serve a gay customer?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
:think: Well, it surely isn't heaven.
oatmeal
Well-known member
The cake shop has that right.
It does not have to sell to anyone. They can close their doors whenever they want to and reopen them.
Should atheist book store owners be forced to sell Christian books?
Should atheists in public schools be forced to pray?
oatmeal
You're wrong as a matter of law.
Of course they can.
No. They're free to choose their stock. That goes to a legitimate business decision/practice. The same would hold true for a book store owned by a Christian. In fact, there are large numbers of Christian book stores that exclude atheist authors and materials.
Of course not. Completely unrelated issue though.
I know. I was having a bit of fun.
I know why you think they contradict; you're problem is that you're not smart enough to figure out why they don't.Sure they do and I set that out clearly enough, your devastating "Nuh-uh" notwithstanding.
Why am I not surprised you would use an offensive epithet?
I didn't say anything about education. I was talking about your chosen profession.
Memento Mori
New member
Apparently most believe that discrimination is self-correcting when it comes to businesses around here...
Rather why they conflict, your charming attempt to smudge that line a bit notwithstanding. You can't say that you believe you shouldn't be discriminated against then state you believe someone should be allowed to discriminate against you without rendering your first statement in conflict with your second. It's like suggesting that people shouldn't steal but some should be allowed to. Now you may feel it's more important that people be allowed to discriminate than protecting people against discrimination (which is a bit idiotic in its own right) but the conflict remains.
That's nearly endearing.
Because you don't understand that word either?
Then you'll apparently be startled to know that my profession is an extension of an academic/educational path. Your failure is an illustration of an undisciplined mind, though you aren't by any means stupid.
Which is such a dangerous fallacy! History shows us that discrimination feeds on itself and becomes ever more dangerous.
Memento Mori
New member
And sadly, things haven't changed all that much.
I never said I shouldn't be discriminated against.:nono:
That isn't what you asked.
And clearly true.That's nearly endearing.
I know the original definition of the word "midget," but I also know that people with dwarfism are offended by the word, because it was used as a derogatory term toward them for something over which they had no control.
And, yes, I know it initially was not solely intended for those with dwarfism, but rather people under a certain height; my aunt happens to fall into that category.
An academic/educational path that you chose. You didn't become an attorney because of your education, you chose to be an attorney and went to school for it.
Tired of trying to rope smoke. I set out both my question and your answers along with an illustration why your "I can't be wrong because it's my opinion" initial attempt failed and your subsequent attempts to find a way to not be what you so apparently were, wrong.
Oh why not...I asked:
Should you have to hide your religious beliefs, not carry your Bible if you want to be served at a particular restaurant?
You answered, "No." Set within the context of the question that would be, "I should not have to hide my religious beliefs, not have to leave my Bible behind to be served." If you weren't served because of your religious beliefs it would be an act of discrimination. Happy to help. :thumb:
Of course that wasn't even your initial attempt. Rather there was the feeble opinion bit I noted prior.
Interesting, but as per your usual here an attempt to move the margin and avoid the point. The word as coined simply refers to a proportionate dwarf. The insult lay elsewhere and was otherwise aimed.
And "We'll have a gay old time," in the Flintstones theme doesn't mean Barney and Fred are reconsidering their relationship just because a group of people decided to add a secondary definition to the word.
Right. That's how it works.
Sure I did. That's also how it works.
Also correct. Confused in part, but you got there.
And, of course, not the point.
Again with the odd sidebar. Try getting through the LSAT and into a good school, then you can come at me with this juvenile "stupid" nonsense. The rest, as it relates to the actual point, I've set out.
:e4e:
You asked me if I should have to hide my religion, you never asked me if I should not be discriminated against. I'd suggest you learn to word your questions to say what you mean, but we know better, don't we. There's a reason you chose to be a lawyer.
Language evolves, and as such when words have new and commonly understood meanings within mainstream language wherein the majority understands them to mean one thing then you cannot rely on the original meaning in a public conversation.
Of course not, because when that show was on the word didn't mean the same thing it is commonly understood to mean now.
Miss the point, much?
Moron.
:dunce::duh:
I asked the question I meant and you fumbled it. Now you're exhibiting the typically childish name calling and denial you're noted for. No real surprise.
Sure. And it frequently takes generations for a primary definition to be usurped by slang. I don't rely on it. I'd warrant that most people think of midget as simply a word describing a dwarf. And the primary definition for midget isn't the definition you're leaning on to try to derail my shot at your laughable critique.
You mean that sub definition hadn't come into popular play. And it still isn't the primary definition and still requires context to be understood as the applicable meaning.
And you're still reaching, grasping and coming up empty.
And deprive you of the one thing you actually do well? Nah. :nono:
Petulant child.
Still not getting it, are you...
lain:
You asked me if I should have to hide my religion. You never asked if I should not be discriminated against.
Then go to a website dedicated to those with dwarfism and ask them what they think.
If I say that something is gay in a public setting no one is going to think I mean "happy."
:yawn:
:bang:
That you're not nearly as smart as you think? Loud and clear.Still not getting it, are you...
I agree with you, as a matter of principle.
The law, takes the position, one may intentionally discriminate, as such, deprive the rights of others from receiving a benefit based on what reason they may hold, to have free access to the use of any service, open to the public.
I do think many persons have been oppressed, based solely, on who they are, as such, the law sees fit to correct this injustice.
Where this matter becomes moot, is being gay who one is? The same as being a Jew, or Latino?
Surly a place of business has the right, more so, the obligation, not to hire an illegal?
If this shall be a Latino, it is not his ethnicity that is the reason to not hire him, bit his illegal status.
What about a gay person? If someone looks gay, and a business refuses him, then that is a miscarriage of justice, yet the 'what' here is passive; I think an active stance, which opposes ones freedom to hold to a value, is as much a case of right as one who entertains another value.
The question comes down to this question: Did the owner of the bakery refuse service because he ascertained the potential customer was gay, or did the customer insist the baker sell enter into business with one who holds openly, an attitude the seller does not condone? Do we have to say that all those who provide a public service must serve all?
When two opposing values are in conflict, does the law, by necessity, have to support anyone who may claim being a victim of oppression? Where do we draw the line, or is the line, lost?
No more accurate than you shifting "contradiction". Rather, you left off the necessary why, in order to be served. That's where the discrimination comes into play, your efforts to alter it notwithstanding.
No need. I used the given, primary definition. I used a definition that, absent a particular context shouldn't be misconstrued.
A bit different, since the popular usage of the term has shifted, while the formal primary hasn't, though you already indicated that context controls that too when you understood singing the Flintstones theme song doesn't confuse you (or anyone).
No one is as smart as you make me feel.