No shirt, no shoes, no service. But two dudes can make out

[Ricter]

Republicans sure do hate freedom.

Well, they love theirs but hate the other guys'.

That obvious truth aside, I don't like to see anyone making out in restaurants.

 

[Tsing Tao]

heh, i was just writing this in another thread. your post is much better though.. and i agree 100%. of course ricter, convertibility, and the like will say they aren't big govt (maybe expanding govt is a better way to put it) sympathizers and value freedom, but it is crystal clear that they DO.

Thank you.

Ricter will always try to side step the issue and weasel his way out of a losing argument, while never admitting himself to be technically wrong. Convertibility is just a screaming shill, and has no such reservations on being labeled such.

 

[Spike Trader]

The freedom to discriminate is still a freedom. A photographer should have the right to choose who he/she wishes to photograph. Any private business person should be able to make the decisions on who they wish to serve. But there is no "right to get a cheeseburger" or "right to be photographed", etc.

Take your head and pull hard to firmly remove it from your ass.

There is a right to that cheeseburger ,if the storekeeper took your money. Why did the photographer accept the contract, and the money, and then refuse to fulfill the commitment?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Well, they love theirs but hate the other guys'.

Absolutely incorrect. Do you even try anymore?

I am totally for someone's right to be gay. I am totally for their right to marry, to do whatever they want in their own privacy - hell, they can even do it in public places, so long as it's within the confines of the law (like any other hetero couple). But the difference here is you are forcing someone they have to accept the freedoms of others in their establishment/business.

 

[Tsing Tao]

There is a right to that cheeseburger ,if the storekeeper took your money. Why did the photographer accept the contract, and the money, and then refuse to fulfill the commitment?

Of course if they took the money, there is a right. But you obviously don't pay attention to any of this. People don't want the money in the first place. They don't want to be forced to serve someone.

 

[Clubber Lang]

There is a right to that cheeseburger ,if the storekeeper took your money. Why did the photographer accept the contract, and the money, and then refuse to fulfill the commitment?

You're trying to distract us off the topic. This has nothing to do with a broken contract.

 

[Spike Trader]

I can't believe in the year 2014 people want the freedom to discriminate. What the heck happened to the republican party?
.

They're loosing it . . . bit time. .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though many cheered when Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062, the bill that would have made it legal for people to refuse to serve LGBT people on religious grounds, there were also some conservative pundits who were not so happy.

The biggest complaint was that Brewer was tossing aside the freedoms of Christians:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/conservative-pundits-arizona-bill_n_4865482.html

 

[Ricter]

They're loosing it . . . bit time. .

It's a bit easier to understand when you recall one of their axioms, "<del>Father</del> Boss knows best."

 

[Clubber Lang]

They're loosing it

Imbecile

 

[PiggyBank]

Absolutely incorrect. Do you even try anymore?

I am totally for someone's right to be gay. I am totally for their right to marry, to do whatever they want in their own privacy - hell, they can even do it in public places, so long as it's within the confines of the law (like any other hetero couple). But the difference here is you are forcing someone they have to accept the freedoms of others in their establishment/business.

right, the saying "your freedoms end where the next mans' begins" is the best way to look at it. otherwise, if you work it out logically, someone's rights are being violated.