UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you never mentioned how, only the result.
like i said, you'll say two different things on two different days.
Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.
- Thread starter BigNBushy
- Start date
- Status
you never mentioned how, only the result.
like i said, you'll say two different things on two different days.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, you're not.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
omg she really does capitalize the w in white..
EDIT: i thought it was just a good troll
damn..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
omg she really does capitalize the w in white..
EDIT: i thought it was just a good troll
that whole thread was a hoot. here's a little gem from nitro about how the blacks should just stop bitching and get some casinos.
totally not racist, somehow.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the US constitution is based largley on the english legal tradition, and throughout the british empire anti-buggery laws were quite strict.
playing dumb is dumber than being dumb.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
He mentioned homosexuality wasn't mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, if wasn't protected.
I don't care about 'based upon', it matters if something is implied, or actually a law, or written into a constitution.
Apparently, homosexuality needs to be mentioned in the constitution or it's not recognized?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
explain your hypothesis.
unless the egg/sperm donor family member was the identical twin of the non-contributing partner, a paternity test will clearly label that kid as NOT YOURS.
another clear demonstration of the willful ignorance of the left
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
identical twins do not have identical DNA.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
identical twins do not have identical DNA.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's been covered many times over by the statement that "no one has a right to harm others".
when we let racist southern business owners "control their own property", their racist practices harmed others.
do you get it now, dumbass?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
repeating your retarded statement makes that statement less retarded, somehow...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
identical twins do not have identical DNA.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When you "let" somebody control their own property but not the property of others you are ensuring neutrality, which is a way to ensure peace. When a person refuses to associate with another they are "leaving them alone". What they think may be offensive to me and you, but that thought has not robbed another of their property right.
When a person says you must use YOUR property a certain way and threatens or uses force against this same property owner, that is not leaving them alone. THAT is the starting point of the aggression. Logic has you trapped, but if you want to put on your anti-gravity anti-logic word salad boots have at it....I just hate it when people that won't leave others alone carry on. All that word salad...cabbage head.
When you were a kid, did you hold your breath alot and get blue in the face? Are you part blue smurf? Which term would you use for a mixed cracka and smurf?
It is all in how you word it, so to speak.
Augusta National, for instance, is a private golf club where they hold The Masters every year. It wasn't long ago that they did not let minorities or females in.
Like twostroke says, they caved to public pressure, but were not subject to the civil rights act. Why? Because they were not open to the public. In other words, they retained a much stronger right to exclusion than Walmart, for example.
Walmart opens it's doors wide and does not place a limit upon entry. Augusta Nationals said to come in you have to join a private association.
Because of this, a place like Sams Club or Costco could stand a better chance of being able to exclude a specific group.
In your private residence and properties you have absolute right of exclusion. "Whites Only" is ok there, if that is what you want. But if you are "open to the public" you cannot exclude anyone but known thieves.
but you don't have the same set of fingerprints.
EDIT: you and your brother are identical? you can pin murders on each other..
Sometimes one will have longer hair than the other, also.
True story... My mother is an identical triplet. Her other two triplet sisters are right handed, and my mom is left handed.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I understand the way that it operates from the legal construction. Walmart would be stupid to exclude people based on race or sexual preference, as would anybody else.
Ownership of property or body isn't ambiguous however. It establishes that the owner controls the property or the physical body or it isn't ownership. That's why prohibition of substances is a form of enslavement as it removes an essential element of ownership, which is control.
I try not to frame this issue in should a white shop owner be allowed to exclude/forced to serve a black customer, or the opposite of the same.
A good example might be the following...
Should a Mexican run establishment be permitted to exclude Guatamalans?
One might first answer, what difference does that make? Or then say, no of course not. Or be like you and say well sure if they own the property.
Such things are not good for a society. Although the biggest impediment to our society might come from "racist whites wanting to keep out blacks," if that is allowed so would other ethnicities excluding all or specific other peoples.
This has a negative impact on commerce. And I'm not talking about the bullshit commerce clause reasoning to end segregation way back when.
It would limit local and state sales taxes. Create massive redundancies in the economy. Serve to further divide the nation, instead of uniting it.
Allowing such a thing has a very bad impact on the whole.
- Status
Similar threads
