GOP rep discovers terrifying fact: That non-Christians exist

[Genivaria]

I support tossing child molesting priests into federal prison if that's what your asking.

Subject change.

You said if you don't outlaw it, you support it. You aren't outlawing the Catholic church. Therefore, you support it. You don't outlaw conservatism, therefore, you are Conservative.

Now that is a big steaming pile of Insane Troll Logic.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Do I want to know what your profession is?

Why, are you looking for a job?

Certainly, I've told told I'm quite a cunning linguist and a master debator, skills I find are valuable in any organisation. I can also work long hours for little pay.

[Veladio]

I support tossing child molesting priests into federal prison if that's what your asking.

Subject change.

You said if you don't outlaw it, you support it. You aren't outlawing the Catholic church. Therefore, you support it. You don't outlaw conservatism, therefore, you are Conservative.

WTF? I will never support the outlawing of a religion. I WILL support the outlawing of FUCKING DISCRIMINATION!

[Wamitoria]

You said if you don't outlaw it, you support it. You aren't outlawing the Catholic church. Therefore, you support it. You don't outlaw conservatism, therefore, you are Conservative.

Well, yeah. If you don't outlaw the Catholic Church, you support it's right to exist. If you don't outlaw conservatism, you support peoples' right to form their own political opinions.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

But they aren't. So it's a violation of people's civil rights.
Without force, I remind you.

I'm still not convinced that is without force. Using your authority as a business owner to deny someone access to a potentially essential service because of their race/religion/political views/sexual orientation strikes me as a use of force. In this case The power inherent with being a business owner: the control of a set of resources.

I should have qualified what I meant by force.

Beating someone up, cooercion, vandalism, forcible conversion on pain of death or just pain, so on so forth. That's what I meant when I said force.

Denying someone service to your restaurant, while denying them the opportunity to buy a burger from you, is bad yet should not be illegal. The government should not be allowed to discriminate. Private people, however, should be allowed to make stupid business decisions.

[Genivaria]

I'm still not convinced that is without force. Using your authority as a business owner to deny someone access to a potentially essential service because of their race/religion/political views/sexual orientation strikes me as a use of force. In this case The power inherent with being a business owner: the control of a set of resources.

I should have qualified what I meant by force.

Beating someone up, cooercion, vandalism, forcible conversion on pain of death or just pain, so on so forth. That's what I meant when I said force.

Denying someone service to your restaurant, while denying them the opportunity to buy a burger from you, is bad yet should not be illegal. The government should not be allowed to discriminate. Private people, however, should be allowed to make stupid business decisions.

Yeah thats still force.

[Miss Defied]

But they aren't. So it's a violation of people's civil rights.
Without force, I remind you.

They aren't, for a dumb reason.

here's an example.

Two diners open up, one is white's only, one is integrated.

Integrated and white's only fight over white consumer base, while integrated gets everyone who isn't white. The integrated one makes money, while the racist one loses it, and goes out of business.

So let me get this straight.
You make an assertion:

In order to violate civil rights, you have to be:

1. The state
2. Using force

Then when you are decidedly shown that your assertion is wrong. you decide that you are correct anyway because you don't believe in the main tenet of the falsehood you promoted.
Staggering.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

You said if you don't outlaw it, you support it. You aren't outlawing the Catholic church. Therefore, you support it. You don't outlaw conservatism, therefore, you are Conservative.

Well, yeah. If you don't outlaw the Catholic Church, you support it's right to exist. If you don't outlaw conservatism, you support peoples' right to form their own political opinions.

And not outlawing discrimination supports people's right to run their business into the ground.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Using force to deny access to a resource I own is already a right anyway, so yes, I had to qualify my statement to force active upon another person.

[Genivaria]

Well, yeah. If you don't outlaw the Catholic Church, you support it's right to exist. If you don't outlaw conservatism, you support peoples' right to form their own political opinions.

And not outlawing discrimination supports people's right to run their business into the ground.

There NOT. Seriously do the oppressed minorities make up 80% of the local populace or something?
There are MORE candidates for the position.

[Raeyh]

But they aren't. So it's a violation of people's civil rights.
Without force, I remind you.

They aren't, for a dumb reason.

here's an example.

Two diners open up, one is white's only, one is integrated.

Integrated and white's only fight over white consumer base, while integrated gets everyone who isn't white. The integrated one makes money, while the racist one loses it, and goes out of business.

Only the white only business also attracts wealthy individuals who have more money to spend, while the integrated one is seen as a place for the lower classes.

[Miss Defied]

Why, are you looking for a job?

Certainly, I've told told I'm quite a cunning linguist and a master debator, skills I find are valuable in any organisation. I can also work long hours for little pay.

LOL.
I'm actually a retired bartender, so ....

And I made up that other stuff up anyway.

[Wamitoria]

Well, yeah. If you don't outlaw the Catholic Church, you support it's right to exist. If you don't outlaw conservatism, you support peoples' right to form their own political opinions.

And not outlawing discrimination supports people's right to run their business into the ground.

You honestly don't think there's demand for a business completely free of [insert ethnicity here]?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

And not outlawing discrimination supports people's right to run their business into the ground.

There NOT. Seriously do the oppressed minorities make up 80% of the local populace or something?
There are MORE candidates for the position.

And in the cases where blacks and other minorities are the most qualified? Unless you think they can't be.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

And not outlawing discrimination supports people's right to run their business into the ground.

You honestly don't think there's demand for a business completely free of [insert ethnicity here]?

Not enough of a demand to survive on more than a supremely local basis. In which case, oh well, just go drive another 2 miles.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Certainly, I've told told I'm quite a cunning linguist and a master debator, skills I find are valuable in any organisation. I can also work long hours for little pay.

LOL.
I'm actually a retired bartender, so ....

And I made up that other stuff up anyway.

And I'm a taekwondo teacher.

[Silent Majority]

I'm still not convinced that is without force. Using your authority as a business owner to deny someone access to a potentially essential service because of their race/religion/political views/sexual orientation strikes me as a use of force. In this case The power inherent with being a business owner: the control of a set of resources.

I should have qualified what I meant by force.

Beating someone up, cooercion, vandalism, forcible conversion on pain of death or just pain, so on so forth. That's what I meant when I said force.

Denying someone service to your restaurant, while denying them the opportunity to buy a burger from you, is bad yet should not be illegal. The government should not be allowed to discriminate. Private people, however, should be allowed to make stupid business decisions.

Whether it is justified is irrelevant, the fact remains that the use of authority still qualifies as the use of coercion.

Here is a less abstract example: if an officer gives a soldier an order, it is a use of force, as the soldier has no choice in the matter(if he/she didn't follow the order he/she could be court marshaled), now most people probably see it as a justified use of force, but it still remains a use of force.

[Wamitoria]

You honestly don't think there's demand for a business completely free of [insert ethnicity here]?

Not enough of a demand to survive on more than a supremely local basis. In which case, oh well, just go drive another 2 miles.

Idk, have you ever been to Kentucky before?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

While we discuss merits, preventing private discrimination has lead to things like affirmative action and colleges bringing on minority members with 3.2 GPAs over majority kids with 4.0 (note, before anyone jumps down my throat I don't think white kids are smarter.), when obviously the 4.0 deserved it.

[Genivaria]

While we discuss merits, preventing private discrimination has lead to things like affirmative action and colleges bringing on minority members with 3.2 GPAs over majority kids with 4.0 (note, before anyone jumps down my throat I don't think white kids are smarter.), when obviously the 4.0 deserved it.

Source?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

I should have qualified what I meant by force.

Beating someone up, cooercion, vandalism, forcible conversion on pain of death or just pain, so on so forth. That's what I meant when I said force.

Denying someone service to your restaurant, while denying them the opportunity to buy a burger from you, is bad yet should not be illegal. The government should not be allowed to discriminate. Private people, however, should be allowed to make stupid business decisions.

Whether it is justified is irrelevant, the fact remains that the use of authority still qualifies as the use of coercion.

Here is a less abstract example: if an officer gives a soldier an order, it is a use of force, as the soldier has no choice in the matter(if he/she didn't follow the order he/she could be court marshaled), now most people probably see it as a justified use of force, but it still remains a use of force.

So the person with a bigot boss leaves, and gets a job with an intelligent boss.

[Milks Empire]

So the person with a bigot boss leaves, and gets a job with an intelligent boss.

And if every fucking boss in town is a bigot? Then what?

[Wamitoria]

So the person with a bigot boss leaves, and gets a job with an intelligent boss.

And if every fucking boss in town is a bigot? Then what?

Then you move out of rural Kentucky.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

While we discuss merits, preventing private discrimination has lead to things like affirmative action and colleges bringing on minority members with 3.2 GPAs over majority kids with 4.0 (note, before anyone jumps down my throat I don't think white kids are smarter.), when obviously the 4.0 deserved it.

Source?

http://www.navytimes.com/prime/2009/06/ ... y_062109w/

[Genivaria]

Source?

http://www.navytimes.com/prime/2009/06/ ... y_062109w/

Yeah there's nothing here that has anything to do with what you said.