A question for Libertarians.

[UncleBuck]

those people are infringing upon other's rights kinda like you try to do

the difference is, when you do it, you think it's ok.

In no world should people be allowed to treat others that way. They are actually assaulting that woman and should be arrested.

that's what you're arguing for a return to.

 

[UncleBuck]

does this actually make sense in your head or are you just messing with me?

does excluding people on the sole basis of skin color strike you as something that is not racist?

does that make sense in your racist head?

 

[ginwilly]

that's what you're arguing for a return to.

If you truly believe society would revert to lynchings and "coloreds drink this fountain" then I understand why you think the way you do.

but yeah, you dumb.

 

[UncleBuck]

If you truly believe society would revert to lynchings and "coloreds drink this fountain" then I understand why you think the way you do.

but yeah, you dumb.

are places that deny service to gays getting boycotted and shut down?

or are republicans like you making it a point to patronize and defend these places?

 

[ginwilly]

does excluding people on the sole basis of skin color strike you as something that is not racist?

does that make sense in your racist head?

If we are excluding people for any reason it's wrong.

The problem is, there are eleventy billion reasons people base exclusions on that you let happen daily. Your way is very inconsistent. You can exclude for this, but not that, this and that, but not those.

What you are saying is "these people need special consideration under the law, those people don't". I just happen to disagree.

 

[Harrekin]

are places that deny service to gays getting boycotted and shut down?

or are republicans like you making it a point to patronize and defend these places?

Do you make a point of going to KFC and drinking sizzup?

 

[UncleBuck]

If we are excluding people for any reason it's wrong.

The problem is, there are eleventy billion reasons people base exclusions on that you let happen daily. Your way is very inconsistent. You can exclude for this, but not that, this and that, but not those.

What you are saying is "these people need special consideration under the law, those people don't". I just happen to disagree.

why do you support excluding people on the sole basis of skin color?

 

[ginwilly]

are places that deny service to gays getting boycotted and shut down?

or are republicans like you making it a point to patronize and defend these places?

For those places that denied service to gays, did the gays have alternative businesses within the same city they could have used? Did the gays pick the ONE business in the city that would refuse them?

No, I'm not putting "can't get my cake at the bakery I want" in the same realm of what blacks went through in the 50's and 60's.

You are a disgusting person to even make that comparison.

 

[Harrekin]

For those places that denied service to gays, did the gays have alternative businesses within the same city they could have used? Did the gays pick the ONE business in the city that would refuse them?

No, I'm not putting "can't get my cake at the bakery I want" in the same realm of what blacks went through in the 50's and 60's.

You are a disgusting person to even make that comparison.

I still wonder what gay cake is.

Is it like straight cake with two dudes on top?

Could they not order it without the dudes and just add them themselves?

 

[ginwilly]

why do you support excluding people on the sole basis of skin color?

I don't.

I support your right to not serve baptists if you wanted.

For you, it's about control and making people behave the way you want. For me, I don't care what you do as long as you are not harming another.

 

[UncleBuck]

For those places that denied service to gays, did the gays have alternative businesses within the same city they could have used? Did the gays pick the ONE business in the city that would refuse them?

No, I'm not putting "can't get my cake at the bakery I want" in the same realm of what blacks went through in the 50's and 60's.

You are a disgusting person to even make that comparison.

i'm just rebutting your stupid delusion that people will just behave themselves with a modern day example.

racists like you prove otherwise. bigots are gonna exclude however they can. if they can't do it on race, they'll do it on sexuality.

and now you are insinuating that two gay people going to get a cake for their wedding is a conspiracy.

tell us again how blacks are responsible for any and all problems in the south and then blame me for it.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't.

that's hilarious.

you are on record over and over and over again defending the racist practice of denying service to people on the sole basis of their skin color.

For me, I don't care what you do as long as you are not harming another.

are you saying that the denial of service that blacks faced before civil rights was harmless then?

 

[ginwilly]

i'm just rebutting your stupid delusion that people will just behave themselves with a modern day example.

racists like you prove otherwise. bigots are gonna exclude however they can. if they can't do it on race, they'll do it on sexuality.

and now you are insinuating that two gay people going to get a cake for their wedding is a conspiracy.

tell us again how blacks are responsible for any and all problems in the south and then blame me for it.

I would say blacks are as responsible as whites wouldn't you?

And yes, there are idiots and racists who would not serve gays or blacks or whites or browns or purples or men or women or dogs or lutherans . So The Fuck What. It's not 1950. If you can't get served there, go across the street.

 

[UncleBuck]

I would say blacks are as responsible as whites wouldn't you?

no, that's not what you said.

when i made a statement of fact about the south without any mention of race, you replied:

because the south has so many blacks

If you can't get served there, go across the street.

so why do you support the racist practice of excluding people on the sole basis of their skin color?

 

[ginwilly]

that's hilarious.

you are on record over and over and over again defending the racist practice of denying service to people on the sole basis of their skin color.




are you saying that the denial of service that blacks faced before civil rights was harmless then?

harmless in what way?

The treatment by the cops the blacks received was harmful.

Making someone pick up food at the back door instead of the front door is causing embarrassment and inconvenience. Not harm.

You seem to be a bit "fluffy" if you know what I mean. Like a little sissy I guess is a better way to say it. Not gay, just not really a grown up, definitely no testosterone.

 

[abandonconflict]

I don't care if you sit on a pot forum all of your waking hours.

You sure have been online a whole lot yourself lately.

 

[ginwilly]

You sure have been online a whole lot yourself lately.

thanks for noticing

 

[UncleBuck]

Making someone pick up food at the back door instead of the front door is causing embarrassment and inconvenience. Not harm.

what about charging someone twice as much for gas?

denying them a room at your motel?

what about being forced to choose from a smaller pool of goods and services solely due to your skin color?

do you think all that was harmless?

You seem to be a bit "fluffy" if you know what I mean. Like a little sissy I guess is a better way to say it. Not gay, just not really a grown up, definitely no testosterone.

are you trying to imply that real men are racists, like you?

 

[UncleBuck]

I would say blacks are just as responsible as whites.

but that's not what you said. you said the south had the problems i listed "because the south has so many blacks".

why are you running away from your own words now?

 

[UncleBuck]

You sure have been online a whole lot yourself lately.

i bet he lost his job as a male nurse because he's such a drunk.