• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christian Mingle and other dating sites MUST allow same sex matches

Are you upset by the black people only dating sites?

i would be if i wanted to use it and was denied because i am not black
 
are they soliciting for business within the public sphere?

then yes ... but only to the protected groups, NOT all groups

Why not all groups? Sounds discriminating to me.
 
glad you are willing to come out as a state's rights southern democrat willing to treat others differently only because of the color of their skin

i can sense your pride

Why don't people have the right to determine they don't want to do business with people of a certain race, gender, sexuality, etc?

Besides the point was that trying to draw a line right in the middle of a logical chain doesn't hold up and will lead to all sorts of problems. Why would people in the future stop at your line in the sand when the logic you're using stops somewhere else?
 
Last edited:
i would be if i wanted to use it and was denied because i am not black

Why? It's just for people who want to meet someone of their race. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
 
are they soliciting for business within the public sphere?

then yes ... but only to the protected groups, NOT all groups

I'm truly surprised by your take on this issue.

Do you believe that there's a constitutional right to assistance in seeking companionship and sex?
 
I'm truly surprised by your take on this issue.

Do you believe that there's a constitutional right to assistance in seeking companionship and sex?

it is more simple then that. he belongs to a growing class of losers in American society that sees job providers as the enemy. he wouldn't dream of stripping individual workers rights in such a manner, but job creators are a class he has no problem punishing
 
comparing government institutions to private institutions is moronic in this context

comparing one form of illicit discrimination to another is a form of debate

one could use moronic approaches, but it depends upon the audience they are attempting to reach. seems to have worked
 
Why not all groups? Sounds discriminating to me.

nope, the association of blue eyed people is not protected

appears this is not material needed to be covered in first grade
 
it is more simple then that. he belongs to a growing class of losers in American society that sees job providers as the enemy. he wouldn't dream of stripping individual workers rights in such a manner, but job creators are a class he has no problem punishing

I don't see justabubba that way, from posting experience, but I am surprised by his views on this issue.
 
Why don't people have the right to determine they don't want to do business with people of a certain race, gender, sexuality, etc?
because it was found to be unConstitutional. duh

Besides the point was that trying to draw a line right in the middle of a logical chain doesn't hold up and will lead to all sorts of problems. Why would people in the future stop at your line in the sand when the logic you're using stops somewhere else?
sarah palin would approve of that meaningless word salad of an expression
 
nope, the association of blue eyed people is not protected

appears this is not material needed to be covered in first grade

And why aren't they a protected class? Is there a reason that blue eyed people don't get protection?
 
I googled for gay dating sites. This is the results:

https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=gay dating sites

So the question is...why sue when those places would LOVE to have their business? Same as the bakery situation. If BLM wants to progress, should they not do business with BLM supporters who work, have businesses, are trying to raise their families? If gays want a cake with two guys on top of it or two lesbians want two women and the bakery says it is against their religious beliefs, why sue them? Why not go to a gay baker and give that person the much appreciated business so the baker can send his or her kids to school, have health insurance, put aside money for college, feed their family, support their partners/spouses? WHY SUE?

Because they don't give one iota of care about any "cause". They want their 15 minutes of fame and they want MONEY. That about sums it up, doesn't it?
 
Why? It's just for people who want to meet someone of their race. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

maybe the parents of some of your first grade students don't want to have their students taught with members of another race

if your presentation is valid then so is the parents'
 
I'm truly surprised by your take on this issue.

Do you believe that there's a constitutional right to assistance in seeking companionship and sex?

i am certain there is a Constitutional prohibition against discriminating against persons who are within the protected groups


being unacquainted with canadian law, i am unsure whether you have protections from such discrimination
 
because it was found to be unConstitutional. duh

The right of private individuals to associate with people of their choosing was found unconstitutional? What part of the constitution speaks towards discrimination by private individuals?

sarah palin would approve of that meaningless word salad of an expression

It's not meaningless or any kind of word salad. Logically the idea that discrimination is wrong in the public sphere leads to a certain end result, but what people like yourself have done is try to stop things somewhere in between and act like your concussion is logically sound.
 
i am certain there is a Constitutional prohibition against discriminating against persons who are within the protected groups

judicial review isn't even in the constitution. judicial review stems from judicial review.
 
And why aren't they a protected class? Is there a reason that blue eyed people don't get protection?

because blue eyed people are not found to be a Constitutionally protected group
 
because blue eyed people are not found to be a Constitutionally protected group

And why are they not a constitutionally protected group?
 
I think it's actually the reverse. It's an abundance of tolerance that supports this type of nonsense clogging up the courts endlessly.


they are using force because they can't tolerate the owner of Christian Mingle from running a business the way they wish
 
The right of private individuals to associate with people of their choosing was found unconstitutional? What part of the constitution speaks towards discrimination by private individuals?



It's not meaningless or any kind of word salad. Logically the idea that discrimination is wrong in the public sphere leads to a certain end result, but what people like yourself have done is try to stop things somewhere in between and act like your concussion is logically sound.
[emphasis added by bubba so his point is not missed]

did you notice that the ruling was NOT against private persons
 
i am certain there is a Constitutional prohibition against discriminating against persons who are within the protected groups


being unacquainted with canadian law, i am unsure whether you have protections from such discrimination

There must be a basis for the claim, and not a frivolous one, for discrimination to be found.

Do you believe that all flag companies must produce rainbow flags, whether or not to do so would be uneconomical for their business model?

There are lots of other examples of frivolous "rights" that any **** disturbing fool could pursue. That doesn't mean courts should humour the idiocy.

I can imagine the people who died in pursuit of gay rights over the years, just as Martin Luther King in pursuit of rights for black people, would be rolling in their graves witnessing how their fights for justice are tarnished by such stupidity.
 
not discriminate against the Constitutionally protected groups

or do you disagree with the US Constitution

What part of the Constitution mandates private entities to not engage in discrimination? Let's first address your insane assumption the Constitution regulates non-governmental, and non-state action. Which part of the document is applicable to private behavior that is non-governmental and not state action?
 
[emphasis added by bubba so his point is not missed]

did you notice that the ruling was NOT against private persons

Who owns the business? Private persons.
 
Back
Top Bottom