Hillary Clinton to Launch 2016 Campaign

[The United Republic of Prussia]

She did work on the Watergate Scandal back in the 70's----http://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/
And the scandal about Benghazi, there is something there. Not deploying marines to assist out the embassy even when it asked for reinforcements, lying to the public about what happened, continuous refusal to disclose information, and others. She has sneaked around way to much in the shadows.

Working on the investigation of Watergate does not make her involved in Watergate.
No, there is no scandal about Benghazi.

Continuously referring to a bias article that sets its own tone and narrative is not going to change my mind.

[Dyakovo]

So regulating guns is bad, but regulating marriage isn't? That's still government intervention in people's private lives. As for society telling you not to criticize gay marriage, society also tells you not to criticize:
Interracial relationships (like I am in now)
Inter religious relationships (like I am in now)
Christianity
Islam
Judaism (My religion)
Irreligious
The wealthy
The poor


This.
We're only extending this law (which is still being violated across the country) to include homosexuals because they're just as American as everyone else. If you refuse to service Mr.Gay because he was being an obnoxious drunk, by all means, the reason is sound. If you were to refuse service to Mrs.Lesbian because your religion says they're evil (despite Cesare Borgia, famous portrait being worshiped as Jesus and was a cardinal for Rome, had an affair with Leonardo Di Vinci), then that is refusal of service based on a person's identity which, if (or is already) the law extended protection for homosexuals, is just as grave of an offense according to the act as refusing Jewish Americans or Disabled Veterans because the owner hates Jews and the disabled. If a Muslim owner was to deny service to a reincarnation of Girolamo Savonarola because of his religion, then the refusal of service is discriminatory in nature and is illegal under the CRA of 1964.

Your freedom ends when it violates the rights of others in a secular society. Unless Hillary's willing to have a civil war by ripping the bill of rights in half, she is unable to ban guns and can only go as far as preventing Amazon from selling guns without background check. Meaning the most she can do is regulate, not outright ban. Then again, it's concerning how it's evil to regulate guns, but not evil to regulate what people do in their bedrooms or deny them secular, Islamic, Jewish, various Christian sect, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, and/or Shinto methods of marriage.

You have nothing against gays and dislike Hillary because she is worse than Obama regrading civil liberties because she believes gays are people in a country where there are various forms of marriage besides the Christian definition and is unable to ban guns.

You're Jewish, as well as am I.

I do not think gay marriage should be illegal, it should be up to the states¹, I just think that if you want to refuse service based upon your religion it should be fine². We live in a country with a free market³ and, I think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to refuse service to straight people, they own the business they should make the rules of who comes in and goes out². I believe in civil rights for all⁴ when it comes to the states and federal levels, that means religious as well as martial rights. I am not saying that you can refuse service JUST because of religion, that is silly but, it is your business (you own the land and the titles), you should be able to refuse service to whomever you want and, this goes for everybody, I don't care about what you identify with. I believe in a truly free market.

When it comes to guns, they are regulated. The NFA regulates which guns can be bought and owned even though the second amendment says "Shall not be infringed". We are already limiting what you can own and how you can purchase it so that it is difficult to own a gun in certain areas and states. Hillary will not go and make them illegal but she could pass and executive order that would make it mandatory to have a gun license and then make it nearly impossible to have a gun license.

I want to be able to own as many guns as I wish to purchase because people still hate my people in this day and age. My temple was attacked by people who hated Jews, our cars were vandalized. I want to own my guns, my life line so that I can prevent any violence against my family, my people, and I.

1: The 14^th Amendment disagrees.
2: A public accommodation, learn what it is.
3: No, we don't.
4: Clearly, you don't.

[Dyakovo]

Working on the investigation of Watergate does not make her involved in Watergate.
No, there is no scandal about Benghazi.

Continuously referring to a bias article that sets its own tone and narrative is not going to change my mind.

Read the fucking report, the article does not state anything that is not in the report.

[The United Republic of Prussia]

You're Jewish, as well as am I.

I do not think gay marriage should be illegal, it should be up to the states¹, I just think that if you want to refuse service based upon your religion it should be fine². We live in a country with a free market³ and, I think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to refuse service to straight people, they own the business they should make the rules of who comes in and goes out². I believe in civil rights for all⁴ when it comes to the states and federal levels, that means religious as well as martial rights. I am not saying that you can refuse service JUST because of religion, that is silly but, it is your business (you own the land and the titles), you should be able to refuse service to whomever you want and, this goes for everybody, I don't care about what you identify with. I believe in a truly free market.

When it comes to guns, they are regulated. The NFA regulates which guns can be bought and owned even though the second amendment says "Shall not be infringed". We are already limiting what you can own and how you can purchase it so that it is difficult to own a gun in certain areas and states. Hillary will not go and make them illegal but she could pass and executive order that would make it mandatory to have a gun license and then make it nearly impossible to have a gun license.

I want to be able to own as many guns as I wish to purchase because people still hate my people in this day and age. My temple was attacked by people who hated Jews, our cars were vandalized. I want to own my guns, my life line so that I can prevent any violence against my family, my people, and I.

1: The 14^th Amendment disagrees.
2: A public accommodation, learn what it is.
3: No, we don't.
4: Clearly, you don't.

1. The 14th Amendment just states that congress can overrule state laws and citizenship, it has nothing to do with marriage. It does address equal rights for ALL people, that would mean that ANY business owner should be allowed to refuse service to ANY person, it would be fair because any person of any background and identification could refuse service to anyone.

2: I know what it is, I am not ignorant.

3: America is a capitalistic society, a market economy. We used to be free until the unions got involved.

4: Yes, I do. I believe that business should be allowed to make decisions based upon personal preference, if a gay person wants to reject service let them. I believe in EQUAL Rights, not Fair rights. If it was fair rights you would force business owners to give them service, but that would mean that we are not a free and equal nation.

[Dyakovo]

1: The 14^th Amendment disagrees.
2: A public accommodation, learn what it is.
3: No, we don't.
4: Clearly, you don't.

1. The 14th Amendment just states that congress can overrule state laws and citizenship, it has nothing to do with marriage. It does address equal rights for ALL people, that would mean that ANY business owner should be allowed to refuse service to ANY person, it would be fair because any person of any background and identification could refuse service to anyone.

2: I know what it is, I am not ignorant.

3: America is a capitalistic society, a market economy. We used to be free until the unions got involved.

4: Yes, I do. I believe that business should be allowed to make decisions based upon personal preference, if a gay person wants to reject service let them. I believe in EQUAL Rights, not Fair rights. If it was fair rights you would force business owners to give them service, but that would mean that we are not a free and equal nation.

1: Businesses are not people.Also, marriage is a basic civil right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

2: Clearly, you don't.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings
Government-owned/operated facilities and services. Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government. Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance).

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

3: "Capitalist" =/= "free market". Also, thankfully unions (and government did step in to restrict what businesses could do.
4: Again, no, you clearly don't since you support discrimination.

[The United Republic of Prussia]

1. The 14th Amendment just states that congress can overrule state laws and citizenship, it has nothing to do with marriage. It does address equal rights for ALL people, that would mean that ANY business owner should be allowed to refuse service to ANY person, it would be fair because any person of any background and identification could refuse service to anyone.

2: I know what it is, I am not ignorant.

3: America is a capitalistic society, a market economy. We used to be free until the unions got involved.

4: Yes, I do. I believe that business should be allowed to make decisions based upon personal preference, if a gay person wants to reject service let them. I believe in EQUAL Rights, not Fair rights. If it was fair rights you would force business owners to give them service, but that would mean that we are not a free and equal nation.

1: Businesses are not people.Also, marriage is a basic civil right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

2: Clearly, you don't.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings
Government-owned/operated facilities and services. Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government. Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance).

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

3: "Capitalist" =/= "free market". Also, thankfully unions (and government did step in to restrict what businesses could do.
4: Again, no, you clearly don't since you support discrimination.

1: It says it cannot be denied based off of racial preference, we aren't talking about racial preference. We are talking about religious, the 14th directly about race and not religious, though it does say marriage is a civil right.

2: I said I knew what it was but, thanks for repeating.

3: Free Markets are commonly Capitalist and don't work unless so. Read up on Laissez-Faire Capabilities, its a good read.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/328028/laissez-faire

4: I don't support discrimination, I support free and equal rights, I support the freedom to choose, not the option to be forced.

[Dyakovo]

1: Businesses are not people.Also, marriage is a basic civil right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

2: Clearly, you don't.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings
Government-owned/operated facilities and services. Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government. Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance).

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

3: "Capitalist" =/= "free market". Also, thankfully unions (and government did step in to restrict what businesses could do.
4: Again, no, you clearly don't since you support discrimination.

1: It says it cannot be denied based off of racial preference, we aren't talking about racial preference. We are talking about religious, the 14th directly about race and not religious, though it does say marriage is a civil right.

2: I said I knew what it was but, thanks for repeating.

3: Free Markets are commonly Capitalist and don't work unless so. Read up on Laissez-Faire Capabilities, its a good read.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/328028/laissez-faire

4: I don't support discrimination, I support free and equal rights, I support the freedom to choose, not the option to be forced.

1: It says that marriage is a basic civil right.
2: You said you knew, but you clearly don't.
3: Just because free markets are capitalist does not mean that capitalist=free market.
4: Yes, you do.

[The United Republic of Prussia]

1: It says it cannot be denied based off of racial preference, we aren't talking about racial preference. We are talking about religious, the 14th directly about race and not religious, though it does say marriage is a civil right.

2: I said I knew what it was but, thanks for repeating.

3: Free Markets are commonly Capitalist and don't work unless so. Read up on Laissez-Faire Capabilities, its a good read.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/328028/laissez-faire

4: I don't support discrimination, I support free and equal rights, I support the freedom to choose, not the option to be forced.

1: It says that marriage is a basic civil right.
2: You said you knew, but you clearly don't.
3: Just because free markets are capitalist does not mean that capitalist=free market.
4: Yes, you do.

1:

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.

It says based off of racial classifications, not religious preference, read the fine print.

2: No, I clearly do.

3: Capitalist are not always free markets but America is a free market, we aren't socialist (Thankfully).

4: Saying I support discrimination does not mean a support discrimination, I support everyone's freedoms, stop being ignorant.

[Crimiea]

So regulating guns is bad, but regulating marriage isn't? That's still government intervention in people's private lives. As for society telling you not to criticize gay marriage, society also tells you not to criticize:
Interracial relationships (like I am in now)
Inter religious relationships (like I am in now)
Christianity
Islam
Judaism (My religion)
Irreligious
The wealthy
The poor


This.
We're only extending this law (which is still being violated across the country) to include homosexuals because they're just as American as everyone else. If you refuse to service Mr.Gay because he was being an obnoxious drunk, by all means, the reason is sound. If you were to refuse service to Mrs.Lesbian because your religion says they're evil (despite Cesare Borgia, famous portrait being worshiped as Jesus and was a cardinal for Rome, had an affair with Leonardo Di Vinci), then that is refusal of service based on a person's identity which, if (or is already) the law extended protection for homosexuals, is just as grave of an offense according to the act as refusing Jewish Americans or Disabled Veterans because the owner hates Jews and the disabled. If a Muslim owner was to deny service to a reincarnation of Girolamo Savonarola because of his religion, then the refusal of service is discriminatory in nature and is illegal under the CRA of 1964.

Your freedom ends when it violates the rights of others in a secular society. Unless Hillary's willing to have a civil war by ripping the bill of rights in half, she is unable to ban guns and can only go as far as preventing Amazon from selling guns without background check. Meaning the most she can do is regulate, not outright ban. Then again, it's concerning how it's evil to regulate guns, but not evil to regulate what people do in their bedrooms or deny them secular, Islamic, Jewish, various Christian sect, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, and/or Shinto methods of marriage.

You have nothing against gays and dislike Hillary because she is worse than Obama regrading civil liberties because she believes gays are people in a country where there are various forms of marriage besides the Christian definition and is unable to ban guns.

You're Jewish, as well as am I.

I do not think gay marriage should be illegal, it should be up to the states, I just think that if you want to refuse service based upon your religion it should be fine. We live in a country with a free market and, I think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to refuse service to straight people, they own the business they should make the rules of who comes in and goes out. I believe in civil rights for all when it comes to the states and federal levels, that means religious as well as martial rights. I am not saying that you can refuse service JUST because of religion, that is silly but, it is your business (you own the land and the titles), you should be able to refuse service to whomever you want and, this goes for everybody, I don't care about what you identify with. I believe in a truly free market.

When it comes to guns, they are regulated. The NFA regulates which guns can be bought and owned even though the second amendment says "Shall not be infringed". We are already limiting what you can own and how you can purchase it so that it is difficult to own a gun in certain areas and states. Hillary will not go and make them illegal but she could pass and executive order that would make it mandatory to have a gun license and then make it nearly impossible to have a gun license.

I want to be able to own as many guns as I wish to purchase because people still hate my people in this day and age. My temple was attacked by people who hated Jews, our cars were vandalized. I want to own my guns, my life line so that I can prevent any violence against my family, my people, and I.

So individual states can decide whether or not a person who prefers one gender over the other is considered a human being with the right to marriage outside of the socially accepted religious dogma's definition of it?

I do not believe homosexuals or heterosexuals should be denied service purely because of who they are. As stated, if Mr. Gay was refused service because he is gay and the owner is Methodist, then it is discriminatory in nature and thus illegal under the CRA of 1964 plus whatever extensions were added. The same way for Mr. Straight being denied service because he is straight and the owner's a member of the Church of Homosexual Revanchism; it is discriminatory by nature and will be prosecuted by law. Just remember Jews weren't considered humans in Christianity and Islam until the Enlightenment came. We were denied entry to universities or a chance to have careers outside loaning money to Christians.

Hillary will not go and make them illegal but she could pass and executive order that would make it mandatory to have a gun license and then make it nearly impossible to have a gun license.

Although that can be a possibility, the fact remains that she can not outright ban the ownership of guns. The worst that can happen regarding gun ownership is charging a tax, strict requirements to have a permit, and background checks. Infringing on the second amendment is more of a gray area and is subject to controversy which I will prefer discussing in private.

I want to be able to own as many guns as I wish to purchase because people still hate my people in this day and age. My temple was attacked by people who hated Jews, our cars were vandalized. I want to own my guns, my life line so that I can prevent any violence against my family, my people, and I.

I'm sorry to hear that. An attack on a synagogue or any religious building, or damaging anyone's property because of anti-[insert religion/race/nationality/sexuality here] sentiment is considered a hate crime and I hope law enforcement is involved. You do have the right to own as many guns as you'd like provided you're proven sane with no criminal records. If it wasn't for an anti-hate crime law that's constantly evolving, things could be worse. The law protects you from discrimination and if your local government doesn't honor this, then that government is not following the law and should be punished accordingly. That is why straight people can not discriminate against gays and gays can not discriminate against straights in Public Accommodations.

[Dyakovo]

1: It says that marriage is a basic civil right.
2: You said you knew, but you clearly don't.
3: Just because free markets are capitalist does not mean that capitalist=free market.
4: Yes, you do.

1:

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.

It says based off of racial classifications, not religious preference, read the fine print.

2: No, I clearly do.

3: Capitalist are not always free markets but America is a free market, we aren't socialist (Thankfully).

4: Saying I support discrimination does not mean a support discrimination, I support everyone's freedoms, stop being ignorant.

1: It specifies racial classifications because that is specifcally what the case was about. This does not in any way change the fact that according to US law, marriage is a basic civil right.
2: If you did, you would realize that businesses that are public accomodations are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes. Ergo, you clearly do not understand what a public accommodation is.
3: No, the US economy is a mixed economy, not a free market.
4: You support business owners being able to discriminate.

I just think that if you want to refuse service based upon your religion it should be fine.

[The United Republic of Prussia]

You're Jewish, as well as am I.

I do not think gay marriage should be illegal, it should be up to the states, I just think that if you want to refuse service based upon your religion it should be fine. We live in a country with a free market and, I think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to refuse service to straight people, they own the business they should make the rules of who comes in and goes out. I believe in civil rights for all when it comes to the states and federal levels, that means religious as well as martial rights. I am not saying that you can refuse service JUST because of religion, that is silly but, it is your business (you own the land and the titles), you should be able to refuse service to whomever you want and, this goes for everybody, I don't care about what you identify with. I believe in a truly free market.

When it comes to guns, they are regulated. The NFA regulates which guns can be bought and owned even though the second amendment says "Shall not be infringed". We are already limiting what you can own and how you can purchase it so that it is difficult to own a gun in certain areas and states. Hillary will not go and make them illegal but she could pass and executive order that would make it mandatory to have a gun license and then make it nearly impossible to have a gun license.

I want to be able to own as many guns as I wish to purchase because people still hate my people in this day and age. My temple was attacked by people who hated Jews, our cars were vandalized. I want to own my guns, my life line so that I can prevent any violence against my family, my people, and I.

So individual states can decide whether or not a person who prefers one gender over the other is considered a human being with the right to marriage outside of the socially accepted religious dogma's definition of it?

I do not believe homosexuals or heterosexuals should be denied service purely because of who they are. As stated, if Mr. Gay was refused service because he is gay and the owner is Methodist, then it is discriminatory in nature and thus illegal under the CRA of 1964 plus whatever extensions were added. The same way for Mr. Straight being denied service because he is straight and the owner's a member of the Church of Homosexual Revanchism; it is discriminatory by nature and will be prosecuted by law. Just remember Jews weren't considered humans in Christianity and Islam until the Enlightenment came. We were denied entry to universities or a chance to have careers outside loaning money to Christians.

Hillary will not go and make them illegal but she could pass and executive order that would make it mandatory to have a gun license and then make it nearly impossible to have a gun license.

Although that can be a possibility, the fact remains that she can not outright ban the ownership of guns. The worst that can happen regarding gun ownership is charging a tax, strict requirements to have a permit, and background checks. Infringing on the second amendment is more of a gray area and is subject to controversy which I will prefer discussing in private.

I want to be able to own as many guns as I wish to purchase because people still hate my people in this day and age. My temple was attacked by people who hated Jews, our cars were vandalized. I want to own my guns, my life line so that I can prevent any violence against my family, my people, and I.

I'm sorry to hear that. An attack on a synagogue or any religious building, or damaging anyone's property because of anti-[insert religion/race/nationality/sexuality here] sentiment is considered a hate crime and I hope law enforcement is involved. You do have the right to own as many guns as you'd like provided you're proven sane with no criminal records. If it wasn't for an anti-hate crime law that's constantly evolving, things could be worse. The law protects you from discrimination and if your local government doesn't honor this, then that government is not following the law and should be punished accordingly. That is why straight people can not discriminate against gays and gays can not discriminate against straights in Public Accommodations.

Regarding the CRA, it does not mention sexual orientation preference.

Title II- Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[

It just says that you cannot discriminate against someone based one their race, color of skin, religion they hold, or national origin.

[The United Republic of Prussia]

1: It says based off of racial classifications, not religious preference, read the fine print.

2: No, I clearly do.

3: Capitalist are not always free markets but America is a free market, we aren't socialist (Thankfully).

4: Saying I support discrimination does not mean a support discrimination, I support everyone's freedoms, stop being ignorant.

1: It specifies racial classifications because that is specifcally what the case was about. This does not in any way change the fact that according to US law, marriage is a basic civil right.
2: If you did, you would realize that businesses that are public accomodations are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes. Ergo, you clearly do not understand what a public accommodation is.
3: No, the US economy is a mixed economy, not a free market.
4: You support business owners being able to discriminate.

I just think that if you want to refuse service based upon your religion it should be fine.

1: The law says its a civil liberty and that you cannot refuse based off of race, that leaves it to be interpreted however when it comes to religious preference.
2: I understand it but that does not mean I agree with it.
3: True, we are a mixed economy but, that does not mean its right.
4: If freedom is called discrimination in your book, go ahead, call it discrimination, I just believe that everyone should have the freedom to make decisions for themselves, I don't care about your race, gender, nationality, or sexual identity, I like freedom. If you don't like freedom, then why live in this nation.

[Dyakovo]

1: It specifies racial classifications because that is specifcally what the case was about. This does not in any way change the fact that according to US law, marriage is a basic civil right.
2: If you did, you would realize that businesses that are public accomodations are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes. Ergo, you clearly do not understand what a public accommodation is.
3: No, the US economy is a mixed economy, not a free market.
4: You support business owners being able to discriminate.

1: The law says its a civil liberty and that you cannot refuse based off of race, that leaves it to be interpreted however when it comes to religious preference.
2: I understand it but that does not mean I agree with it.
3: True, we are a mixed economy but, that does not mean its right.
4: If freedom is called discrimination in your book, go ahead, call it discrimination, I just believe that everyone should have the freedom to make decisions for themselves, I don't care about your race, gender, nationality, or sexual identity, I like freedom. If you don't like freedom, then why live in this nation.

1: You just don't get what a basic civil right is, do you?
2: You disagreeing with it is immaterial.
3: Whether you think it should be a mixed economy or not is immaterial. This does not in any way change the fact that it is not a free market.
4: Denying rights to people is not freedom.

[The United Republic of Prussia]

1: The law says its a civil liberty and that you cannot refuse based off of race, that leaves it to be interpreted however when it comes to religious preference.
2: I understand it but that does not mean I agree with it.
3: True, we are a mixed economy but, that does not mean its right.
4: If freedom is called discrimination in your book, go ahead, call it discrimination, I just believe that everyone should have the freedom to make decisions for themselves, I don't care about your race, gender, nationality, or sexual identity, I like freedom. If you don't like freedom, then why live in this nation.

1: You just don't get what a basic civil right is, do you?
2: You disagreeing with it is immaterial.
3: Whether you think it should be a mixed economy or not is immaterial. This does not in any way change the fact that it is not a free market.
4: Denying rights to people is not freedom.

1: Civil Right until fine print.
2: And? This is a debate about opinion.
3: True, I'll agree to that.
4: Forcing someone to serve someone is not freedom. Forcing a business to serve certain people, that is not freedom. Allowing people to choose, that is freedom. Not allowing women to have abortions would be discrimination but, allowing them is freedom.

[Dyakovo]

1: You just don't get what a basic civil right is, do you?
2: You disagreeing with it is immaterial.
3: Whether you think it should be a mixed economy or not is immaterial. This does not in any way change the fact that it is not a free market.
4: Denying rights to people is not freedom.

1: Civil Right until fine print.
2: And? This is a debate about opinion.
3: True, I'll agree to that.
4: Forcing someone to serve someone is not freedom. Forcing a business to serve certain people, that is not freedom. Allowing people to choose, that is freedom. Not allowing women to have abortions would be discrimination but, allowing them is freedom.

1: No, that is not what a basic civil right is.
2: The laws regarding public accommodations make what you think should be allowed illegal.
4: No-one is forced to serve anyone. Owners of public accommodation businesses choose to operate a public accommodation. If they do not wish to be open to the public, they can choose to no longer be open to the public - either through shutting down their business or becoming a private club.

[Crimiea]

So individual states can decide whether or not a person who prefers one gender over the other is considered a human being with the right to marriage outside of the socially accepted religious dogma's definition of it?

I do not believe homosexuals or heterosexuals should be denied service purely because of who they are. As stated, if Mr. Gay was refused service because he is gay and the owner is Methodist, then it is discriminatory in nature and thus illegal under the CRA of 1964 plus whatever extensions were added. The same way for Mr. Straight being denied service because he is straight and the owner's a member of the Church of Homosexual Revanchism; it is discriminatory by nature and will be prosecuted by law. Just remember Jews weren't considered humans in Christianity and Islam until the Enlightenment came. We were denied entry to universities or a chance to have careers outside loaning money to Christians.


Although that can be a possibility, the fact remains that she can not outright ban the ownership of guns. The worst that can happen regarding gun ownership is charging a tax, strict requirements to have a permit, and background checks. Infringing on the second amendment is more of a gray area and is subject to controversy which I will prefer discussing in private.


I'm sorry to hear that. An attack on a synagogue or any religious building, or damaging anyone's property because of anti-[insert religion/race/nationality/sexuality here] sentiment is considered a hate crime and I hope law enforcement is involved. You do have the right to own as many guns as you'd like provided you're proven sane with no criminal records. If it wasn't for an anti-hate crime law that's constantly evolving, things could be worse. The law protects you from discrimination and if your local government doesn't honor this, then that government is not following the law and should be punished accordingly. That is why straight people can not discriminate against gays and gays can not discriminate against straights in Public Accommodations.

Regarding the CRA, it does not mention sexual orientation preference.

Title II- Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[

It just says that you cannot discriminate against someone based one their race, color of skin, religion they hold, or national origin.

That is why I said we are extending that law to homosexuals. Thus, even if I am not a fan of Hillary, she views homosexuals as human beings deserving of the same respect and treatment as others.

[Ashmoria]

You're Jewish, as well as am I.

I do not think gay marriage should be illegal, it should be up to the states, I just think that if you want to refuse service based upon your religion it should be fine. We live in a country with a free market and, I think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to refuse service to straight people, they own the business they should make the rules of who comes in and goes out. I believe in civil rights for all when it comes to the states and federal levels, that means religious as well as martial rights. I am not saying that you can refuse service JUST because of religion, that is silly but, it is your business (you own the land and the titles), you should be able to refuse service to whomever you want and, this goes for everybody, I don't care about what you identify with. I believe in a truly free market.

.

you think that it is GOOD to have people have to GUESS whether or not an open store will serve them?

I don't.

[Patridam]

Continuously referring to a bias article that sets its own tone and narrative is not going to change my mind.

Read the fucking report, the article does not state anything that is not in the report.

Doesn't matter what actually happened. As long as there are a great deal of people that consider it scandalous (and there most definitely are), it's inherently controversial.

[Myrensis]

Working on the investigation of Watergate does not make her involved in Watergate.
No, there is no scandal about Benghazi.

Continuously referring to a bias article that sets its own tone and narrative is not going to change my mind.

Yes, everybody knows House Republicans are a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals dedicated to protecting Obama and ensuring Hillary's rise to power at any cost. Since Republicans are apparently an integral part of the Hillary/Obama/Democrat Benghazi conspiracy, why do you trust them to investigate it? Surely Alex Jones or Donald Trump should be brought in and given sweeping authority to find THE TRUTH!!1

[Ashmoria]

Read the fucking report, the article does not state anything that is not in the report.

Doesn't matter what actually happened. As long as there are a great deal of people that consider it scandalous (and there most definitely are), it's inherently controversial.

and those people will never vote for Hillary Clinton anyway. it is their dislike of her that make them believe things that the REPUBLICANS showed aren't true.

[Patridam]

Doesn't matter what actually happened. As long as there are a great deal of people that consider it scandalous (and there most definitely are), it's inherently controversial.

and those people will never vote for Hillary Clinton anyway. it is their dislike of her that make them believe things that the REPUBLICANS showed aren't true.

So it doesn't really matter anyway. There are plenty of better reasons not to vote for Hillary than her involvement/lack the thereof in Benghazi.

[Ashmoria]

and those people will never vote for Hillary Clinton anyway. it is their dislike of her that make them believe things that the REPUBLICANS showed aren't true.

So it doesn't really matter anyway. There are plenty of better reasons not to vote for Hillary than her involvement/lack the thereof in Benghazi.

only if you are hardcore right.

she will make an excellent president. if we can get the congress back from the republicans at the same time we can start getting things done again. we'll probably get the senate but its doubtful we can do anything about the house until after the 2020 census.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm just saying, if he's the best governor out of all the governors that was elected, from both parties, then he's by every measure a good governor since he's above average.

I'll also admit that he's a lot better than other governors in our country, but, my disappointment in his administration is, as I've stated posts ago, that we as a state have every reason to trump the nation of Germany. To be more fair, we're supposed to be trumping even the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria, and Baden-Württemberg (both individually and the three states combined) but they all trump California.

My opinion of the nation as a whole regarding state governors: he's better than many, but not the best. Until Jerry Brown brings us back to the paradise that was Pat Brown's administration, he is still an inefficient governor after 40+ years of having a political career. Numbers showed how inefficient Brown, Schwarzenegger, Davis, and everyone before them and after Pat Brown are compared to the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the entire nation of Germany.

An inefficient governor is an inefficient governor no matter how good they are compared to other inefficient governors.

You're right. He should have waved his hand and repealed Proposition 13 by decree. Now can we PLEASE stay on topic?

[Dyakovo]

Read the fucking report, the article does not state anything that is not in the report.

Doesn't matter what actually happened. As long as there are a great deal of people that consider it scandalous (and there most definitely are), it's inherently controversial.

Yeah, it really does matter. As far as the people who consider it scandalous, they don't matter. They'd never vote for Hillary anyway.

[The Black Forrest]

1: You just don't get what a basic civil right is, do you?
2: You disagreeing with it is immaterial.
3: Whether you think it should be a mixed economy or not is immaterial. This does not in any way change the fact that it is not a free market.
4: Denying rights to people is not freedom.

1: Civil Right until fine print.
2: And? This is a debate about opinion.
3: True, I'll agree to that.
4: Forcing someone to serve someone is not freedom. Forcing a business to serve certain people, that is not freedom. Allowing people to choose, that is freedom. Not allowing women to have abortions would be discrimination but, allowing them is freedom.

4) *shrugs* Boo hoo for them. They don't like niggers? Don't have a store front with "open" on the door. Freedom to run a business doesn't give you the freedom from being uncomfortable with niggers in your store. All that matters is how people conduct themselves, their expectations on your product and their ability to pay.

Seriously; damn the government and the local communities for "making" you make more money.