Trans Woman Dares Bible-Quoting Councilman to Stone Her to Death [W:366]

[shrubnose]

Great. Then dont associate with bigots. Picket their establishments. But dont employ the state to trample their rights.

The only right that bigots have is the right to remain silent.

"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 

[Henrin]

The only right that bigots have is the right to remain silent.

The right to property implies the right to discriminate with the use of that property.

 

[shrubnose]

The right to property implies the right to discriminate with the use of that property.

You need to read the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Maybe you should memorize it.

 

[CLAX1911]

Healthcare = need

False.

Private room for pumping = need

False

Should I go on?

Please do. I love seeing you make a fool of yourself.

Then you are doing nothing but stating current law that everyone is already aware of. Maybe you should be less pointless in your arguments.

I have a better point to make than you.

My point: live with it.

Your point: was was was it's unfair.

My counter point: do something about it than.

Your pathetic excuse: I can't I forfeit my rights because I don't have the balls to stand up for what I believe in.

Dude, you're the gay guy sitting here describing anuses and talking about lube.

I used a common euphemism for making up something. You in a terrible attempt to be funny made reference to what you imagine transpires in my bedroom. I was simply mocking you for your need to attempt to ridicule me for my sexuality. It plays conveniently into my phrase above. But I was simply talking about fletch's fabrication of what he pretends my agrument is. But you want to talk about my sex life. So we can do that.

That sure as hell sounds like what you have been doing.

Because you frantic need to argue with the gay guy and your need to discuss my ass and what you believe has been in it, has caused you to be selectively illiterate.

But prove me wrong, read through this entire thread and copy and paste any where I suggested this be a criminal offense.
While you are doing that try to avoid thinking about my sex life. It clouds your ability to comprehend written word apparently.

 

[CLAX1911]

The right to property implies the right to discriminate with the use of that property.

Do so at your own peril. Nobody is telling you that you can't.

 

[Henrin]

False.

Obamacare doesn't force people to buy insurance? It doesn't mandate things be covered by insurance? It doesn't mandate doctors buy certain equipment? It doesn't give the president the power to mandate anything he desires on insurance in the future? Gosh, what is the entire law about? Need? Oh right, that is it.

False

What else is it? The woman wants and might need to pump her breasts and because of this the government has mandated businesses provide a clean and private room for her to pump.

I have a better point to make than you.

My point: live with it.

Your point: was was was it's unfair.

My counter point: do something about it than.

Your pathetic excuse: I can't I forfeit my rights because I don't have the balls to stand up for what I believe in.

What did the courts say about the right to association argument?
What did they say about the servitude argument?
What did they say about the property rights argument?

Look, it's has already been tried through the court system. There is no point in going back to lose. They clearly are not going to uphold rights. I have no interest in dealing with nine assholes that just want to grow their own power.

I used a common euphemism for making up something. You in a terrible attempt to be funny made reference to what you imagine transpires in my bedroom. I was simply mocking you for your need to attempt to ridicule me for my sexuality. It plays conveniently into my phrase above. But I was simply talking about fletch's fabrication of what he pretends my agrument is. But you want to talk about my sex life. So we can do that.

Don't you think it's pretty odd for a gay guy to insult other people for having things up their ass?

Because you frantic need to argue with the gay guy and your need to discuss my ass and what you believe has been in it, has caused you to be selectively illiterate.

I wasn't discussing asses. You sure as hell were though.

But prove me wrong, read through this entire thread and copy and paste any where I suggested this be a criminal offense.
While you are doing that try to avoid thinking about my sex life. It clouds your ability to comprehend written word apparently.

Have you read your posts? I have no need to copy and paste anything, since you have been doing it every single post almost.

 

[Henrin]

You need to read the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Maybe you should memorize it.

There is more laws and even state constitutional amendments on this matter that need to be dealt with today. If you are a property owner than it is implied by your right as a property owner that you get to control access and use of that property that you own. It doesn't matter if it's a home, a business, your own body, land, or whatever else, you get to control the access and use of that property. It is absolute nonsense to claim that business owners do not have this right because they are in business.

 

[CLAX1911]

Obamacare doesn't force people to buy insurance? It doesn't mandate things be covered by insurance? It doesn't mandate doctors buy certain equipment? It doesn't give the government the power to mandate anything it desires on insurance in the future?

Good lord you can't even follow your own argument. You said it was a need, it's not. People weren't dropping dead prior to it's existence. Oh you weren't sdo busy tripping over your own bull**** you wouldn't come off so inept.

Gosh, what is the entire bill about? Need? Oh right, that is it.

You have a pretty ridiculous method for establishing need. Probably why you are sdo clumsy at this.

What else is it? The woman wants and might need to pump her breasts and because of this the government has mandated businesses provide a clean and private room for her to pump.

That isn't a need.

What did the courts say about the right to association argument?
What did they say about the servitude argument?
What did they say about the property rights argument?

It's all well documented and very detailed. Look it up.

Look, it's has already been tried through the court system. There is no point in going back to lose.

If you aren't going to fight for your rights that you don't deserve them.

They clearly are not going to uphold rights. I have no interest in dealing with nine assholes that just want to grow their own power.

So this whole time you we complaining to me because ... Everybody else is sick of your cry baby act?

Don't you think it's pretty odd for a gay guy to insult other people for having things up their ass?

I think it's odd for a "straight" guy to even make that association. You haven't ever heard that before? Someone says something off the wall and unrelated, and somebody else says "you pulled that right out of your ass."? What do you live under a rock?

Any excuse to talk about gay people huh?

I wasn't discussing asses. You sure as hell were though.

Hey denial only fools you buddy.

Have you read your posts? I have no need to copy and paste anything, since you have been doing it every single post almost.

you apparently don't know how to read. I never once said, suggested, or even eluded to this becoming a criminal offence. None of my posts say anything of that nature, in fact I remember explaining that it was a civil issue.

But If you want to substitute your delusions for reality than I guess I can't stop you.

 

[CLAX1911]

There is more laws and even state constitutional amendments on this matter that need to be dealt with today. If you are a property owner than it is implied by your right as a property owner that you get to control access and use of that property that you own. It doesn't matter if it's a home, a business, your own body, land, or whatever else, you get to control the access and use of that property. It is absolute nonsense to claim that business owners do not have this right because they are in business.

You have that right. What is the matter with you. If you believe the constitution backs you up you should have no trouble proving that in court should it get to that point. Police don't attest you, it isn't a crime.

 

[Henrin]

Good lord you can't even follow your own argument. You said it was a need, it's not. People weren't dropping dead prior to it's existence. Oh you weren't sdo busy tripping over your own bull**** you wouldn't come off so inept.

You didn't hear about those poor souls going without insurance? Those poor souls that couldn't afford birth control. All those poor souls with pre-existing conditions that just couldn't get insurance? I'm not sure they could cry louder.

That isn't a need.

You clearly haven't heard women complain about it or hear them talk about the need to pump right now. Apparently women have been pushing for these private clean pump rooms for decades.

It's all well documented and very detailed. Look it up.

Yes, it's called court rulings and I have.

If you aren't going to fight for your rights that you don't deserve them.

I am more than willing to fight for what I believe in. I just realize that the court system is not of any use to me on this issue.

So this whole time you we complaining to me because ... Everybody else is sick of your cry baby act?

They never even listened to the arguments being presented to them and if you actually read the rulings you would find they flat out rejected all rights arguments and sided with government power instead. What was it again? Oh right, "it's not involuntary servitude because it's not like the condition of black slavery and the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce." Which is funny considering it was a hotel, and involuntary servitude does not have to match the condition of black slavery.

I think it's odd for a "straight" guy to even make that association. You haven't ever heard that before? Someone says something off the wall and unrelated, and somebody else says "you pulled that right out of your ass."? What do you live under a rock?

Any excuse to talk about gay people huh?

I just think you like talking about anuses.

Hey denial only fools you buddy.

You were the one that brought up stuff being up peoples asses. Look back a page and see.

you apparently don't know how to read. I never once said, suggested, or even eluded to this becoming a criminal offence. None of my posts say anything of that nature, in fact I remember explaining that it was a civil issue.

But If you want to substitute your delusions for reality than I guess I can't stop you.

Do you agree it should be against the law or not?

 

[sangha]

John Locke is not the source of my rights.

I didn't say he was. You're dodging because you can't address the points I made

Any determination of the majority, to be just, must defer to the rights of the individual lest it simply be tyranny in the form of mob rule. Locke did not advocate that. I do agree that pulling out of context quotes like you have done may make it appear so however. But it is not so. What Locke and others meant by surrendering certain freedoms was that in the state of nature, you were free to clear land, build a home and raise a family. I was free to kick in your door, end your life, rape your wife and take your property as my own. What we surrender in civil society is the initiation of the use of force against our fellow citizens.

You are making stuff up again. Locke never said the only thing we surrender in forming a civil society was the initiation of the use of force. That's why you don't quote Locke saying anything like that - it's because he never said it.

Face the facts - all you've got is a constant whine about a mythical right to discriminate against others in order to practice bigotry. Society has rejected your immoral code

 

[Henrin]

You have that right. What is the matter with you. If you believe the constitution backs you up you should have no trouble proving that in court should it get to that point. Police don't attest you, it isn't a crime.

What happens if a business is found guilty of discriminating? Does the state perhaps punish them?

 

[sangha]

**** it. The word is property. You're trying to use Locke's work to find support for violating property rights, which just so happens to be the exact thing his treatise was designed to protect. Your little game of taking things out of context to find support for your beliefs is sickening.

You're trying to make up lies about what Locke said, which is why you can't quote Locke saying what you dishonestly claimed he said

Locke defines political power as the right to make laws for the protection of ______.

One word. What is it?

Locke did not define political power as "the right to make laws for the protection of property" You are making it up as you go because your delusional beliefs leave you no other option. Here is what Locke actually said

Sect. 3. POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws

Please note how Locke explicitly recognizes the governments right to REGULATE PROPERTY

 

[Henrin]

You're trying to make up lies about what Locke said, which is why you can't quote Locke saying what you dishonestly claimed he said

I have no reason to lie. It's not like my argument demands I uphold his theory on government.

 

[Henrin]

Please note how Locke explicitly recognizes the governments right to REGULATE PROPERTY

Please note how you are using the modern definition of the word regulate. How long ago did he die again? :lol: It might be helpful to use definitions that existed in his time when you interpret his work.

 

[sangha]

I have no reason to lie. It's not like my argument demands I uphold his theory on government.

You lied when you said that Locke defined political power as the right to make laws for the protection of property

Here is what Locke really said:

Sect. 3. POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws

You are on our land. It is our property, and we will protect *our* property by requiring that you obey *our* laws. If you don't like that, GTFO

 

[sangha]

Please note how you are using the modern definition of the word regulate. How long ago did he die again? :lol: It might be helpful to use definitions that existed in his time when you interpret his work.

I see you're back to hiding that fact that you have no argument by asking questions

 

[Henrin]

You are on our land. It is our property, and we will protect *our* property by requiring that you obey *our* laws. If you don't like that, GTFO

Sorry, my property is my land. You don't own my land.

 

[Fletch]

I didn't say he was. You're dodging because you can't address the points I made

You haven't made any points.

You are making stuff up again. Locke never said the only thing we surrender in forming a civil society was the initiation of the use of force. That's why you don't quote Locke saying anything like that - it's because he never said it.

You brought Locke into this in some ill advised appeal to authority. And I specifically addressed the out of context quotes of his that you posted.

Face the facts - all you've got is a constant whine about a mythical right to discriminate against others in order to practice bigotry. Society has rejected your immoral code

You seem to be unable to grasp simple concepts here. The label something a "mythical right to discriminate" simply because you dont know what is being discussed here. But I do love the leftist appeal to majority rule when it serves their agenda however. Since the majority opposes gay marriage you must be quoting Locke here to back up your opposition then .

 

[shrubnose]

There is more laws and even state constitutional amendments on this matter that need to be dealt with today. If you are a property owner than it is implied by your right as a property owner that you get to control access and use of that property that you own. It doesn't matter if it's a home, a business, your own body, land, or whatever else, you get to control the access and use of that property.

It is absolute nonsense to claim that business owners do not have this right because they are in business.

Try to refuse to serve someone because you don't like their race, religion or sexual preference and see how far you get in the USA.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 

[Henrin]

I see you're back to hiding that fact that you have no argument by asking questions

I'm not hiding anything. You're being stupid by using modern definitions to interpret a document that was written a couple hundred years ago. You're doing the same exact retardation that the SC does when interpreting the commerce clause.

 

[Henrin]

[/COLOR][/B]




Try to refuse to serve someone because you don't like their race, religion or sexual preference and see how far you get in the USA.

"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Thanks for your utterly pointless post.

 

[sangha]

Sorry, my property is my land. You don't own my land.

The nation belongs to us. If you don't like our rules, GTFO.

Or you can continue to whine like the other libertarian losers, as long as you do what you're told (which you will) or suffer the consequences

 

[Fletch]

The nation belongs to us. If you don't like our rules, GTFO.

Or you can continue to whine like the other libertarian losers, as long as you do what you're told (which you will) or suffer the consequences

The truth is, the whining that has been going on in the country for the past few years is from gays trying to change the laws and to change the culture to fit their lifestyle. Did you tell them to GTFO? If not, why not?

 

[sangha]

You haven't made any points.

Libertarians, as opposed to libertarianism, depend on being completely disconnected from reality, which is why they depend on the delusion that they have the right to freely practice their bigotries

You brought Locke into this in some ill advised appeal to authority. And I specifically addressed the out of context quotes of his that you posted.

You "addressed" nothing. All you did was whine about how they were out of context while doing nothing to show that they were out of context.

You seem to be unable to grasp simple concepts here. The label something a "mythical right to discriminate" simply because you dont know what is being discussed here. But I do love the leftist appeal to majority rule when it serves their agenda however. Since the majority opposes gay marriage you must be quoting Locke here to back up your opposition then .

You are unable to present any defense of your inane claims other than to rant about how everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Your posts are an intellectual fraud.

BTW, the majority supports SSM and the constitution and the overwhelming majority has rejected your inane philosophy. This nation belongs to us. It's our property, so you will follow our rules on our property (which includes rules about what you can do with your property). If you don't like how we use our property, you can GTFO.

But you won't GTFO. You will stay here and whine while you do follow the rules or you will suffer the consequences

Sucks to be libertarian.