Straights only water fountain

NLXSK1 said:

If someone didnt want to bake me a cake I would find someone that would. I would not force the person to do it. This is where our government has overreached. It is deciding the rights of one person supersede the rights of another person.

Click to expand...

sounds like you want to protect the rights of the bigots over the rights of those who just happen to be born a certain way.

you have still not answered whether or not you support title II of civil rights, either.

UncleBuck said:

sounds like you want to protect the rights of the bigots over the rights of those who just happen to be born a certain way.

you have still not answered whether or not you support title II of civil rights, either.

Click to expand...

I dont want to force either party to comply to the will of the other party under duress...

Sounds to me like you have absolutely no problem with the government using force whenever it determines you to be in the wrong.

NLXSK1 said:

I dont want to force either party to comply to the will of the other party under duress...

Sounds to me like you have absolutely no problem with the government using force whenever it determines you to be in the wrong.

Click to expand...

do you really think racist business owners refusing service to blacks were under duress? they were doing just fine. the blacks they kicked out, however, had to publish a book just to help them get around without being charged twice as much for gas.

way to avoid giving an answer, coward.

title II: do you support it or not?

NLXSK1 said:

If someone didnt want to bake me a cake I would find someone that would. I would not force the person to do it. This is where our government has overreached. It is deciding the rights of one person supersede the rights of another person.

Click to expand...

Even though I would sell to anyone regardless of who they are, it sounds reasonable to me that the government shouldn't be the decider.

jahbrudda said:

Even though I would sell to anyone regardless of who they are, it sounds reasonable to me that the government shouldn't be the decider.

Click to expand...

so was government doing a bad thing by being the decider when they crafted title II of civil rights?

UncleBuck said:

so was government doing a bad thing by being the decider when they crafted title II of civil rights?

Click to expand...

That's a tough one.
Even though I hate how African Americans were treated before the civil rights act, I believe the government overreached it authority by forcing private businesses to adhere to laws that in my opinion, should have been exclusively held to public owned entities. I would however, have supported a nationwide boycott of all private businesses engaged in those racist business practices.

jahbrudda said:

That's a tough one.
Even though I hate how African Americans were treated before the civil rights act, I believe the government overreached it authority by forcing private businesses to adhere to laws that in my opinion, should have been exclusively held to public owned entities. I would however, have supported a nationwide boycott of all private businesses engaged in those racist business practices.

Click to expand...

alright, so you're a racist who opposes civil rights. good to know.

UncleBuck said:

alright, so you're a racist who opposes civil rights. good to know.

Click to expand...

That doesn't work on me, buck.
You can call me racist all day long, seven days a week, doesn't phase me a bit.

jahbrudda said:

That doesn't work on me, buck.
You can call me racist all day long, seven days a week, doesn't phase me a bit.

Click to expand...

so you cite white supremacists at numbersUSA and oppose civil rights, but totally not racist. got it.

UncleBuck said:

this thread has destroyed twostroke's sensitive butthole.

Click to expand...

You flatter yourself as you twist.
The fact you feel the need to explain others positions is indicative of your weak stance in thought.

Case in point is the cases you cite here, didn't stop them did it?

In fact I am sitting here in awe of your literal non support in the system you so dearly believe in and endorse with your fingers and mouth.

kpmarine said:

So their action are okay because something worse happened to them? Every time people get worked up, there's a death threat. That's not to say it's okay. I just have no idea what this actually has to do with anything.

Click to expand...

For the record I think the refusal was pretty retarded. But then again I think a gay couple going to a Christian bakery for a wedding cake is equally retarded.

twostrokenut said:

For the record I think the refusal was pretty retarded. But then again I think a black couple going to a racist's lumber yard for windows and door frames is equally retarded.

Click to expand...

think of how stupid you will sound in 40 years.

twostrokenut said:

For the record I think the refusal was pretty retarded. But then again I think a gay couple going to a Christian bakery for a wedding cake is equally retarded.

Click to expand...

why, gay people aren't allowed to be christians??

racerboy71 said:

why, gay people aren't allowed to be christians??

Click to expand...

it sounds like he's saying that they gays should know their place and not bother those cake makers with their absurd demands of cake making.

racerboy71 said:

why, gay people aren't allowed to be Christians??

Click to expand...

What did I just let out some big secret that by and large Christians aren't down for being gay?
Another newsflash: Islam isn't down for the infidel.

I am pretty sure anyone is allowed to be anything they allow themselves to be, free country right?
Say they wouldn't, then start a gay Christian church and use the same bible; no biggie.

twostrokenut said:

For the record I think the refusal was pretty retarded. But then again I think a gay couple going to a Christian bakery for a wedding cake is equally retarded.

Click to expand...

Is that something they advertise? I've never seen "Jane's Christian bakery". That aside, all sins are equal in the eyes of the christian god. Unless they're turning away gluttons, people buying pastries for their extramarital affairs, and any other sinner that walks into the shop; these people have an issue with homosexuality, and it doesn't jive with their scripture.

UncleBuck said:

it sounds like he's saying that they gays should know their place and not bother those cake makers with their absurd demands of cake making.

Click to expand...

Nope. I say let the religious be religious, let gays be gay, let a junky mainline.

It sounds to me like the cake makers offered any service except wedding cake, which their religious principals prohibited as interpreted by them, which they have a right to do.

It sounds as if the Bakers were making a stand, and the customers were too.
It sounds like the bakers made a proper to them religious argument but not the correct legal one, which would have been "you raised your voice to me and my wife, no service".

Matter of fact, given the violent activism afterwards it all reeks of a staged event of incitement.

The only reason the bakers lost the case is because they were not a certified religions institution, or a private one.

And am I wrong in thinking title II does not protect sexual orientation?
I mean if the argument is should sexual orientation be protected in title II then I would be all for it.

I would have served the couple but than again I would not have an advertised Christian bakery.

kpmarine said:

Is that something they advertise? I've never seen "Jane's Christian bakery". That aside, all sins are equal in the eyes of the christian god. Unless they're turning away gluttons, people buying pastries for their extramarital affairs, and any other sinner that walks into the shop; these people have an issue with homosexuality, and it doesn't jive with their scripture.

Click to expand...

Now there's something I could not agree more with.

twostrokenut said:

Nope. I say let the religious be religious, let gays be gay, let a junky mainline.

Click to expand...

...and let the racists be racist, even if it means kicking blacks out? you've said so before.

twostrokenut said:

It sounds to me like the cake makers offered any service except wedding cake, which their religious principals prohibited as interpreted by them, which they have a right to do.

Click to expand...

no, they do not have a right to do that.

the word you're looking for is 'principles', by the way.

twostrokenut said:

It sounds as if the Bakers were making a stand, and the customers were too.
It sounds like the bakers made a proper to them religious argument but not the correct legal one, which would have been "you raised your voice to me and my wife, no service".

Click to expand...

you should be very proud of yourself for finding any way you can to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation without saying so, truly a level of scumbag and cowardice which few bigots achieve.

twostrokenut said:

Matter of fact, given the violent activism afterwards it all reeks of a staged event of incitement.

Click to expand...

i'd say it sounds more like a couple trying to get a wedding cake from a maker of wedding cakes, but do let your paranoid bigoted conspiracies flow freely, they amuse me.

twostrokenut said:

The only reason the bakers lost the case is because they were not a certified religions institution, or a private one.

Click to expand...

that, and oregon civil rights law.

twostrokenut said:

And am I wrong in thinking title II does not protect sexual orientation?
I mean if the argument is should sexual orientation be protected in title II then I would be all for it.

Click to expand...

yet you say civil rights, title II specifically, is not "a good idea".

two faced.

Oh god here we go with UncleDrunk bullshit.

UncleBuck said:

...and let the racists be racist, even if it means kicking blacks out? you've said so before.

Citation needed for that exact quote on your response to this post or you will remain a drunk partisan hack.

no, they do not have a right to do that.

the word you're looking for is 'principles', by the way.

Yes they do, it means being private or masking the intention but the right is retained nonetheless. I am sorry you don't like rights.

you should be very proud of yourself for finding any way you can to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation without saying so, truly a level of scumbag and cowardice which few bigots achieve.

You can't stop discrimination with laws against discrimination any more than you can stop murders with laws against murder. Way too simple for a progressive designed to conquer with complexity though, with a hand in others pockets to pay for their utopian dream all the while contributing zero to the tax base, like yourself UncleDrunk.


i'd say it sounds more like a couple trying to get a wedding cake from a maker of wedding cakes, but do let your paranoid bigoted conspiracies flow freely, they amuse me.

Given your party's ideology that the end justifies the means through such practices as eugenics, terrorism and violent activism....such as death threats over a fucking cake you are easily amused and infinity ignorant.

that, and oregon civil rights law.
"correct" is much easier to type, but do attempt to justify your existence.


yet you say civil rights, title II specifically, is not "a good idea".

two faced.

Click to expand...

I said it was redundant in the face of the Constitution, explained it well and you were too much of a dumb ass to figure it out....was my first reaction.
Given your track record here of misquoting everyone (like me to pull you quoting Sowell?)you don't agree with its simply a case of trying to save face on the internet by name calling.

Good luck with that.