- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
lol when you said my opinion was wrong...you gave your own opinion.
but lol that you don't know that, this is great. how many pages has it been of you not understanding this?
Moderator's Warning: |
more back pedals and re-framing and deflections
its been probably 5 pages of me proving your statement was factually false
simple question, lets see if theres another dodge
its a yes or no question
did I give you my "U]opinion[/U] on what rights are? yes or no
who wants to bet this question isnt answered and its dodged AGAIN
and there you have it, that is the lie that was posted and this as been proven many times.lol yes. When you gave your opinion on my opinion.
and there you have it, that is the lie that was posted and this as been proven many times.
The topic of this thread is about rights and suing when they are infringed on etc
At no time have i ever given my opinion of what rights are, not once.
If you believe the lie that was proven wrong simply quote me simply quote me doing so. Thanks
When you opine on my opinion, that's an opinion. lol
When you gave your opinion on my opinion. Do I need to quote you on that lol? Fine.quote me giving my opinion of what rights are please
5.) so i was correct you dont want peoples rights protected, thanks for proving that
Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage* - NY Daily News
Soooo, here it is, the other side of the coin. For all of you who cheered the veto of the Arizona protection of religion bill, we now have the flip side. Governor Martinez' hairdresser refuses to do business with her any more because of her views on gay marriage. Anyone want to try to defend this bigotry? After all the claims of Equality, it seems that equality really ISN'T the point after all.
Personally, I'd sue his panties off just to make a point.
When you gave your opinion on my opinion. Do I need to quote you on that lol? Fine.
THIS IS YOUR OPINION ON WHAT RIGHTS ARE! You're clearly saying that your opinion is that my opinion is wrong.
You think your opinion is a fact. Everyone reading this gets that. Except for you, apparently, who thinks that YOUR OPINION is somehow a fact.
The point being, what he's doing is illegal.
I don't think so. She does not qualify as a protected class as a recipient of discrimination in this situation.
Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage* - NY Daily News
Soooo, here it is, the other side of the coin. For all of you who cheered the veto of the Arizona protection of religion bill, we now have the flip side. Governor Martinez' hairdresser refuses to do business with her any more because of her views on gay marriage. Anyone want to try to defend this bigotry? After all the claims of Equality, it seems that equality really ISN'T the point after all.
Personally, I'd sue his panties off just to make a point.
He has done business with her in the past. Did he not know her opinion on gay marriage then? I agree you shouldn't have to do business with people you do not want to. Keep in mind that this is the context of the Arizona bill where the gay community was all up in arms about. They did not think it was fair for a business to refuse service based on personal beliefs, which is exactly what is happening here.
I completely agree and passionately support equality for everyone. My feelings on this issue are that you best serve it when you practice what you preach. So one should try to live it themselves. Even when it is profoundly difficult. Otherwise aren't you just trading places with them? (turning THEM away because of YOUR personal beliefs)
I don't think so. She does not qualify as a protected class as a recipient of discrimination in this situation.
I worked at a spa, and one of the best stylist was a gay man. Obviously gay. I was there once and a husband and wife came in for him. While he was cutting his hair with the wife nearby, made a comment about some guy on the radio being gorgeous. The wife made a scene about them being fine with him being gay as long as he didn't put it in their face, because they liked his work.
He said nothing at all. When they left, they acted everything was cool, because he acted gracious and professional through the whole thing. But I couldn't blame him of he didn't keep seeing them. I thought the scene they caused was uncalled for, and over something stupid. They just wanted to make their point. But you ought to have your respect when you work.
I completely agree with you and I don't "blame" him either. For me I have a great deal of respect for the way the stylist in your story chose to handle the situation. That is so difficult but so effective. If there is any hope for those close minded bigots who treated him that way, they felt incredibly guilty for their behavior when they got home and I would bet that his gracious manner made that more likely. Like everything else in life however, there are a multitude of ways to handle any situation and no one option is always best suited for every circumstance. In all honesty, my gut tells me to pop in the nose but that doesn't really change hearts and minds.
I doubt they felt any guilt or shame. They were probably proud for standing up for their morals. I was shocked when they created that scene, neither of them showed shame.
THis thread is just another perfect example of how many people have no clue what law, facts and rights are.
Just people confusing "feelings" and opinion and biased "emotion" with facts and it shows bad.
Illegal discrimination has very specific definitions, they vary some by state, county municipality but they are defined. If it doesn't fit that definition then its not illegal, if it does then it is illegal :shrug:
Never understood why some people cant grasp this very simply concept.
I don't really follow what you're saying.
You claimed that there are competing liberties, but that's only for specific cases. Being denied a cupcake, for instance, does not infringe upon your rights. But you are overlooking the very basic, and that is that an individual owns their own property and labor. Some dude owns that cupcake, some dude made that cupcake. His property and labor. You do not have inherent right to that cupcake. You do not own any other individual. If you claim right to someone's property and labor, you are trying to assert a level of ownership over that individual.
There are certainly times when denial of service can really affect the rights of others, for instance emergency services. And in those specific circumstances we can weight the rights on hand and use government force to ensure that protection of rights and liberty. But denial of services doesn't innately infringe upon one's rights and when denial of service does not; say for a photographer or a cake, then it should be up to the property owner to decide what to do with their property and labor. You don't have any rightful claim to it.
Sue him if he wants to be treated equelly and fairly by people who are against his lifestyle, he should then treat those with a lifestyle or opinion he is against equally as the children in the USA say the golden rule? I'm gay and I think this guy is an idiot and he is one of the many reasons that kind of slow down progress in the LGBT community
Are you saying that anti-discrimination laws don't protect rights? I mean, you can certainly make a case for them being unconstitutional; but then you're saying that segregation is constitutional. You're also saying that Sherman is unconstitutional. (ie the government places anti-monopoly/collusion restrictions on private business for the greater good)
I'd say that there is a compelling societal benefit to compel all businesses to not discriminate among clients. Can a private country club be whites only?
What you do with your own property is your own business; but when you engage in business you are entering the public sphere. It's not just "your" property. You're running on publicly funded infrastructure trading in public spaces with publicly financed police and emergency services etc...
So unless you're claiming that segregation is constitutional, there are definitely competing rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?