The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[GILSAN]

If that gay bar is advertised as public and commercial enterprise then yes; however, the person that does this will be need to find a lawyer who is willing to spend time to get access to said bar and be willing to be publicly known. In winning he will have the right to go to a bar where he will be allowed entry, served in an environment where the patrons will all hate him. Sounds worth it to win a moral victory to get entry somewhere you don't want to be in the first place.

The patrons will all hate him .... that's what I imagine would happen as well. Very intolerant people indeed. You've just proved me right.

So now everyone can sue everyone if denied service. I think that the Photographer and the Baker who were sued and had their businesses destroyed by all the bad publicity thanks to the MSM making such a big fuss out of it, is only going to make matters worse

A lot more resentment is going to come out of this. People living in fear of being sued for the most ridiculous situations. The Media would never, ever do the same if a straight person was denied entry into a Gay Bar, it would be a non-news... as it should be.

Jan Brewer, buckled in and vetoed the Bill because of the relentless Media pressure.

No doubt about it... the Media is just too powerful for the good of a true democracy. They have brainwashed an enormous segment of the population, who no longer needs to think for themselves, 'cause the Media will do it for them

 

[DU]

The patrons will all hate him ....

Let me be clear. They would hate him not because of his sexual orientation but because he sought legal remedy to something that wasn't really a problem (that is a straight guy wanting to be in a gay bar) - largely to be (I assume) spiteful.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 PM ----------

... the Media is just too powerful for the good of a true democracy.

Do you know what a true democracy is? And wasn't it the media that pushed this agenda in the first place?

 

[JB Lions]

"Tax man comes for couple's gold-coin find

The people who unearthed the stash on their property could owe nearly half of the $10 million value in federal and state taxes.

That puts the total amount going to state and federal tax at about 47 percent, the article said."

http://money.msn.com/investing/post--tax-man-comes-for-couples-gold-coin-find

Straight gangsterism

 

[johname]

They're in a higher tax bracket now.

 

[GILSAN]

Let me be clear. They would hate him not because of his sexual orientation but because he sought legal remedy to something that wasn't really a problem (that is a straight guy wanting to be in a gay bar) - largely to be (I assume) spiteful.

Exactly. Couldn't agree with you more.There are so many Bars to go to and yet he picks a Gay Bar. He did it mostly to be spiteful by making a mountain out of a molehill. Gays have every right to have bars just for themselves, without being bothered.

The example that you gave us is exactly what happened to to the Photographer and the Baker. They should also have the same right to say no to a customer. The gay couples that sued them showed total intolerance and did it to be spiteful. They could have gone somewhere else with their business, but no, they had to destroy them with the willing help of the Liberal Media.

Now everyone can sue anyone for the most ridiculous reasons. The Lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

 

[DU]

Now everyone can sue anyone for the most ridiculous reasons. The Lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Nothing has changed. You could always sue.

What was the monetary award for damages in those cases? Why were they ruined?

The point though is that the photographer discriminated. If the photographer had simply presented a vision for the wedding that didn't match the couples needs then it would have been based on a real commercial decision. You can get out of anything if you want if you play the system - you just can't be overtly discriminatory. The use of religion as a basis for discrimination is wrong. End of discussion as far as almost all courts have found so far.

But yes, I don't believe in radical anything.... I do think that people should have some leeway. I don't know why a gay person would WANT to support a homophobic business... just move on, nothing to see here. Civil rights abuses are everywhere because of over zealous legal experts.

 

[GILSAN]

Oops... wrong thread

 

[Theo Goodman]

I'm not sure what side you are on.

this is part of a bigger issue, people need to stop trying to organize people into categories. I just mean that you cant have your cake and eat it too. Either people can say who and who is not welcome on their private property ,or they can not and the goverment dictates it for them. Of course this is a binary way to look at it but it does in fact come down to this.

it's hard to see the line from A to B

I asked a theoritcal question. It was an extreme example but shows some of the problems of goverment regulation imho.

ou cannot solicit business..

then that's not enough that you disagree with the t-shirt.

Yes of course that would cover a business card, however if my t-shirt says "I hate gay people" then can the gay store owner ask the paying cutomer to leave? In turn if the gay person walks into waffle house with a t-shirt that says "I hate all straight people, destroy all hetros" then can the manager of the waffle house kick him out, I dont mean phyiscaly I mean verbal, of course phyiscal contact would be assault I dont mean physical when I say "kick out".
I dont have a problem with business being able to deny service, I dont think forcing them too is going to help anyone, quite the opposite. All of this has 0 to do with my personal opinon of gays or people against gays.

Again - it's based on discrimination.

Then discrimination needs to be clearly defined, and if I cant descriminate on my property then why have private property at all? A

valid reason

for some would be that the person is gay so they kicked them out, for someone else that is not a

valid reason

but Im sure the cops can decide what a

valid reason

is even if this

valid reason

is on my private property.

It could very well be that serving food, taking photos, or baking a cake for a KKK member and doing a good job may actually start a conversation where things change?

If you do that out of your own free will and not coercion then that is up to you.

 

[GILSAN]

Yes of course that would cover a business card, however if my t-shirt says "I hate gay people" then can the gay store owner ask the paying cutomer to leave? In turn if the gay person walks into waffle house with a t-shirt that says "I hate all straight people, destroy all hetros" then can the manager of the waffle house kick him out, I dont mean phyiscaly I mean verbal, of course phyiscal contact would be assault I dont mean physical when I say "kick out".
I dont have a problem with business being able to deny service, I dont think forcing them too is going to help anyone, quite the opposite. All of this has 0 to do with my personal opinon of gays or people against gays.

Couldn't agree with you more. I'm sure that many Christian Photographers or Bakers are not in the least bothered to service a Gay Wedding, but for those who are bothered and say NO for personal or Religious reasons, it's totally unfair to have some one sue you and destroy your business, just because you said no to a future service.

However, if the Photographer or the Baker has a product for sale and is displayed on the counter or a shelf and refuses to sell it, then that's different.... then I would have no problem if they sued them

I lived in San Francisco for a year in the mid 70's and one night a friend and I were refused entry into a Bar. When we asked why, the guy at the door said that it was a Gay Bar and straights were not welcome there. We had no idea it was a Gay Bar, but we understood their position and just moved on without making a fuss.

This is why I don't understand what all what all this fuss is about when a Gay Couple is refused a service. Just take your business elsewhere, without the need to, legally and with the help of the Liberal Media, to destroy someone's business and their life.

 

[JB Lions]

Russian Forces Flood Crimea; Ukraine Warns of War

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/russian-forces-flood-crimea-ukraine-warns-war-n42066

There have been all kinds of videos on LiveLeak with some of the clashes last couple of weeks. People getting sniped, killed etc.

Is there a good or right side here?

I guess there were some people not happy of them not getting with EU? Should they or stay independent? Then head of Ukraine was Russia/Putin buddy, now he's gone? Now somebody else is in there. So does Ukraine want to be with Russia, with EU, on their own, what? Or different parts and people want different things and it's a mess.

 

[verbster]

This is why I don't understand what all what all this fuss is about when a Gay Couple is refused a service.

What this "fuss" is all about? Well, it's about how difficult it is to protect the rights of businesses and individuals at the same time. Unlike simplistic "binary" solutions, like life, some solutions are incredibly complex and often messy no matter which side you support. The trouble is there will always be someone who wants to exploit a social issue for whatever reasons . . . righteousness, bigotry, money, publicity, and/or weird stuff like a need to cause dissent, or whatever, and when you limit or expand the rights of one side often by force, it has ripple effects on the bigger picture.

It has taken a long time to get where we are now concerning civil rights. And we now have the Civil Rights act, equal opportunity laws and more to try and keep things balanced because the minute people stop making a "fuss," when one side is silenced, usually a minority side, it allows unchecked extremism. And unchecked extremism leads to the rejection and persecution of anyone who doesn't agree. We know from history how that turns out. There's an old saying if we don't learn from the past, we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Presumably, we all know a couple examples or when extremists took over. And that's what the fuss is all about, and the fact that even though it's taken a few hundred years, this the balance we've struck and made into law. For example, you can't compare a person's home on a public street with a person's restaurant on a public street because a restaurant is considered a place of public accommodation and a house isn't.

 

[Theo Goodman]

For example, you can't compare a person's home on a public street with a person's restaurant on a public street because a restaurant is considered a place of public accommodation and a house isn't.

Yes but if I own the business then the question is how far can the goverment go in telling me what to do on my property. I paid taxes for the road just like everyone else, so the whole

it was paid for by taxes

argument doesnt make sense, unless my taxes are not worth as much as someone elses.

In

life

it often comes down to a

"binary"

choice, either you do something or you dont, yes or no. This does not mean that something is not complex no matter how complex you have to make

"binary"

choices.

The trouble is there will always be someone who wants to exploit a social issue for whatever reasons . . .

this sounds like a ____________theory.

I wouldnt call a lot of what

we

have right now

balanced

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------

Is there a good or right side here?

I guess there were some people not happy of them not getting with EU? Should they or stay independent? Then head of Ukraine was Russia/Putin buddy, now he's gone? Now somebody else is in there. So does Ukraine want to be with Russia, with EU, on their own, what? Or different parts and people want different things and it's a mess.

Not really. Russia had a better deal on the table than what the EU was offering. Without getting the exacts, I think, they wanted to just pay off some of their debt if they would continue the relationship, what that would include I am not 100% sure. Entering the EU would mean that the EU would have to bail them out, or the IMF it is unclear atm, also entering the EU is not exactly great for "freedom" and "national sovereignty" which is what a lot of the socalled "opposition" was calling for. Sure there is a lot of corruption, but there are new sudies that show corruption in the EU is very bad, very. So it is ironic that to get rid of a corrupt leader you would want to join the EU. Both sides were proped up by the EU or Russia. This is the new kind of war, manufactured "uprisings" like the "arab spring".

 

[verbster]

Yes but if I own the business then the question is how far can the goverment go in telling me what to do on my property. I paid taxes for the road just like everyone else, so the whole argument doesnt make sense, unless my taxes are not worth as much as someone elses.

Thanks for the totally non sequitur argument.

Please review what I wrote and tell me where I mentioned anything about taxes, let alone using them as an "argument" for anything.

As I tried to explain, the judicial system and laws are what determines how far you or the government can go when it comes to your private property. As I also tried to explain, there is a difference between a house and types of businesses. Different laws apply.

The Civil Rights Act ensures the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

That's why businesses are treated different than homes, the "public accommodation" part. A restaurant can refuse service to someone who is drunk and causing a scene, but not just because of their race. Whereas in your home, a person can't just walk in, sit down at your table and order lunch.

 

[GILSAN]

What this "fuss" is all about? Well, it's about how difficult it is to protect the rights of businesses and individuals at the same time. Unlike simplistic "binary" solutions, like life, some solutions are incredibly complex and often messy no matter which side you support. The trouble is there will always be someone who wants to exploit a social issue for whatever reasons . . . righteousness, bigotry, money, publicity, and/or weird stuff like a need to cause dissent, or whatever, and when you limit or expand the rights of one side often by force, it has ripple effects on the bigger picture.

It has taken a long time to get where we are now concerning civil rights. And we now have the Civil Rights act, equal opportunity laws and more to try and keep things balanced because the minute people stop making a "fuss," when one side is silenced, usually a minority side, it allows unchecked extremism. And unchecked extremism leads to the rejection and persecution of anyone who doesn't agree. We know from history how that turns out. There's an old saying if we don't learn from the past, we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Presumably, we all know a couple examples or when extremists took over. And that's what the fuss is all about, and the fact that even though it's taken a few hundred years, this the balance we've struck and made into law. For example, you can't compare a person's home on a public street with a person's restaurant on a public street because a restaurant is considered a place of public accommodation and a house isn't.

Quite honestly, your 2 long paragraphs don't make any sense to me. Must be my lack of knowledge of the English language.

I wonder how you would react in this situation; Lets image you have a website (very easy to understand in a forum like this) about Alaskan Trout Fishing and a Porn Company contacts you to put an ad on your site. You refuse their business for obvious reasons.

They then become vindictive and sue you. Meanwhile the Liberal Media (always the Liberal Media) goes into a frenzy and gives you bad publicity. They win the case, and pretty soon your website has to close down.

Is this morally correct? Should that Porn Company have the Legal right to sue you?.... give me a simple answer without going into 2 paragraphs of complex jargon that only a Liberal can understand?

Here's an interesting article that explains things a lot better than what I do:

5 Reasons Christian Businesses Shouldn't Be Legally Forced To Support Gay Weddings

http://townhall.com/columnists/john...ed-to-support-gay-weddings-n1802331/page/full

 

[Theo Goodman]

Hi,

Thanks for the totally non sequitur argument.

Please review what I wrote and tell me where I mentioned anything about taxes, let alone using them as an "argument" for anything.

If you want we can call each others argument names:
Thanks for the totaly authoritarian statist cultist argument.
Yes it is true that you did not use the word taxes, however you did in fact mention

public roads

However when public roads were brought up in this current discussion there was a direct connection to them being paid for by taxes, therefore the connection.

As I tried to explain, the judicial system and laws are what determines how far you or the government can go when it comes to your private property. As I also tried to explain, there is a difference between a house and types of businesses. Different laws apply.

Yes this is quite true, but I am mearly questioning the exsiting

balance

we have now.

judicial system and laws are what determines how far you or the government can go when it comes to your private property.

Yes that is amazing. However I am not asking what function the current set up has, but rather -should- the goverment be able to tell you what and what you can not do, and where -should- this line be drawn, not where the current line is.

As I also tried to explain, there is a difference between a house and types of businesses.

Yes that is true, however if I own the business it is still my property, and again I am not asking what the current laws are or how they work, but suggesting that they already reach quite far and at times are extreme.

A restaurant can refuse service to someone who is drunk and causing a scene, but not just because of their race. Whereas in your home, a person can't just walk in, sit down at your table and order lunch.

Yes they are different but if /I own the place, I own the place/ and should be able to do what I please as long as I dont phsyicaly hurt anyone, imho. I seriously doubt this will lead to

extremists

taking over

Yes I know that is not the law currently and I am not claiming that it is. That is it really. I realise that many disagree but that is ok.

 

[johname]

Theo_Goodman try using one "Originally Posted by " in your posts so we don't have to try to figure out who you're talking to.

 

[verbster]

Quite honestly, your 2 long paragraphs don't make any sense to me. Must be my lack of knowledge of the English language.

Sorry about your language difficulties. I hear Google has a great language translation site.

I wonder how you would react in this situation; Lets image you have a website (very easy to understand in a forum like this) about Alaskan Trout Fishing and a Porn Company contacts you to put an ad on your site. You refuse their business for obvious reasons.

They then become vindictive and sue you. Meanwhile the Liberal Media (always the Liberal Media) goes into a frenzy and gives you bad publicity. They win the case, and pretty soon your website has to close down.

Is this morally correct? Should that Porn Company have the Legal right to sue you?.... give me a simple answer without going into 2 paragraphs of complex jargon that only a Liberal can understand?

Simple answer: I can't answer a question that's so unrealistic.

My last posts have been trying to explain that the area of civil rights is very complex. . . that the best and brightest in the USA have made their arguments. The results are now our current laws that we abide by.

 

[GILSAN]

Simple answer: I can't answer a question that's so unrealistic.

:lol: Fair enough. It was unrealistic of me to expect an honest, straight forward answer from a Liberal

 

[verbster]

Ah, now I see why you reply with fragmented quotes; they don't show up when someone quotes you, which makes it difficult to reply.

Hi,

If you want we can call each others argument names:
Thanks for the totaly authoritarian statist cultist argument.

I have no idea what an "authoritarian statist cultist argument" is. I tried to run it through Google Translator, but they didn't have a bullsh*t category.

Yes it is true that you did not use the word taxes, however you did in fact mention [public roads]. However when public roads were brought up in this current discussion there was a direct connection to them being paid for by taxes, therefore the connection.

Do you mean indirect connection? Anyway, why would you think that bringing up paying taxes to pay for a public street was a good basis to support an argument about the rights of private property?

Yes this is quite true, but I am mearly questioning the exsiting [balance] we have now.

Yes that is amazing. However I am not asking what function the current set up has, but rather -should- the goverment be able to tell you what and what you can not do, and where -should- this line be drawn, not where the current line is.

Well, jeez. What's the point of a central government? Please don't tell me you think people as individuals would be better off without any government.

Yes that is true, however if I own the business it is still my property, and again I am not asking what the current laws are or how they work, but suggesting that they already reach quite far and at times are extreme.
Yes they are different but if /I own the place, I own the place/ and should be able to do what I please as long as I dont phsyicaly hurt anyone, imho. I seriously doubt this will lead to Yes I know that is not the law currently and I am not claiming that it is. That is it really. I realise that many disagree but that is ok.

Knock yourself out.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------

:lol: Fair enough. It was unrealistic of me to expect an honest, straight forward answer from a Liberal

Well let's see . . .You set up an imaginary situation that will never happen about trout fishing and porn, supposedly to illustrate what you consider a moral situation that should outweigh law on a complex civil rights situation and you call it unrealistic that I'm unable to answer in an honest, straight forward manner because I'm a liberal? Are you kidding or do you not recognize the absurd?

 

[DU]

I wonder how you would react in this situation; Lets image you have a website (very easy to understand in a forum like this) about Alaskan Trout Fishing and a Porn Company contacts you to put an ad on your site. You refuse their business for obvious reasons.

They then become vindictive and sue you. Meanwhile the Liberal Media (always the Liberal Media) goes into a frenzy and gives you bad publicity. They win the case, and pretty soon your website has to close down.

How did they win this case in your example? What discrimination against what protected class occurred here? As a business you can turn down business or clients for a number of reasons - you can't just do it because you're a bigot. You can't turn them down because they are gay - you can turn them down because your site doesn't deal in porn, guns, tobacco or whatever. You don't have to sell ALL products. You just can't NOT sell someone's product because of a discrimination. I couldn't go to my gas station and FORCE them to sell Dildos made out of Jello and Vodka.

The thing you appear to be missing the point of here is that this law "legalized discrimination". The veto of this law simple prevented the legalization of discrimination. No rights were REDUCED or REMOVED through anything that happened in Arizona.

You're making assertions that are false. You are creating a slippery slope that really doesn't exist. You're being needlessly paranoid because that's what your "non-MSM" wants.