Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[La Xinga]

The Civil rights act affected Public areas too, right?

Yes

Exactly. So since it's public land, no one should have the right to refuse anyone there.

[San Lumen]

Yes

Exactly. So since it's public land, no one should have the right to refuse anyone there.

A hotel, store or other venue is private property is it not? Are you saying it shouldn’t apply go anywhere that’s not public?

[La Xinga]

Exactly. So since it's public land, no one should have the right to refuse anyone there.

A hotel, store or other venue is private property is it not? Are you saying it shouldn’t apply go anywhere that’s not public?

Yes.

[San Lumen]

A hotel, store or other venue is private property is it not? Are you saying it shouldn’t apply go anywhere that’s not public?

Yes.

You can’t be serious. If a store or hotel had a policy of white heterosexuals only you’d think that’s their right?

[La Xinga]

Yes.

You can’t be serious. If a store or hotel had a policy of white heterosexuals only you’d think that’s their right?

Yes, as long as it ain't violent.

[The New California Republic]

You can’t be serious. If a store or hotel had a policy of white heterosexuals only you’d think that’s their right?

It actually wasn't that long ago that there were TV commercials that advertised Sandals holiday resorts as being for "mixed-sex couples only". I remember seeing them on TV, and that text always appeared at the bottom. It eventually stopped of course, but it went on for a long time before it did.

[San Lumen]

You can’t be serious. If a store or hotel had a policy of white heterosexuals only you’d think that’s their right?

Yes, as long as it ain't violent.

Why should they have that right? African Americans should have just left the south entirely? Lgbt people should have just accepted they were unequal depending on where they lived?

[La Xinga]

Yes, as long as it ain't violent.

Why should they have that right? African Americans should have just left the south entirely? Lgbt people should have just accepted they were unequal depending on where they lived?

No. The south is public property.

[San Lumen]

Why should they have that right? African Americans should have just left the south entirely? Lgbt people should have just accepted they were unequal depending on where they lived?

No. The south is public property.

That doesn’t answer my question

[La Xinga]

No. The south is public property.

That doesn’t answer my question

It does

[San Lumen]

That doesn’t answer my question

It does

No it doesn’t

[La Xinga]

It does

No it doesn’t

It does. To the African American part, the part worth quoting.

[San Lumen]

No it doesn’t

It does. To the African American part, the part worth quoting.

A state is not public property. By your logic they should have all just left and LGBT people in certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights

[La Xinga]

It does. To the African American part, the part worth quoting.

A state is not public property. By your logic they should have all just left and LGBT people in Missouri certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights

Biggest straw man ever? I don't even think this is a strawman, like what?

[San Lumen]

A state is not public property. By your logic they should have all just left and LGBT people in Missouri certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights

Biggest straw man ever? I don't even think this is a strawman, like what?

It’s not a straw man it’s your logic

[La Xinga]

Biggest straw man ever? I don't even think this is a strawman, like what?

It’s not a straw man it’s your logic

Dude, I support that business owners should have the right to refuse request if they don't want.

You took that and somehow got:

It does. To the African American part, the part worth quoting.

they should have all just left and LGBT people in certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights

[San Lumen]

It’s not a straw man it’s your logic

Dude, I support that business owners should have the right to refuse request if they don't want.

You took that and somehow got:

they should have all just left and LGBT people in certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights

Therefore there ought to be a right to discriminate and the civil rights should be repealed

[La Xinga]

Dude, I support that business owners should have the right to refuse request if they don't want.

You took that and somehow got:

Therefore there ought to be a right to discriminate and the civil rights should be repealed

N-no? There's a difference between private property and right to discriminate, which doesn't exist.

[San Lumen]

Therefore there ought to be a right to discriminate and the civil rights should be repealed

N-no? There's a difference between private property and right to discriminate, which doesn't exist.

What is the difference? Your arguing for a right to discriminate just using different words. By your logic the civil rights act should not have been passed

[Jedi Council]

Why should they have that right? African Americans should have just left the south entirely? Lgbt people should have just accepted they were unequal depending on where they lived?

No. The south is public property.

You are willfully misinterpreting Lumens point.

They are saying that given the amount of discrimination in the South on private property (segregated restaraunts for example), that black people would have to move North to expect equal service.

Being pedantic and working only by this nebulous concept of "the South" is silly.

[Novus America]

N-no? There's a difference between private property and right to discriminate, which doesn't exist.

What is the difference? Your arguing for a right to discriminate just using different words. By your logic the civil rights act should not have been passed

Well TBF for example the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 only applied to governmental entities.
Of the 6 titles in the 1964 act only one, Title II covers private entities, banning some private entities from discrimination.

So you could pass civil rights laws only restricting governments and you could only repeal article II of the 1964 act leaving the rest intact. Private and governmental discrimination are different things.

That being said I do think some anti discrimination laws should apply to many private entities (and outlined a legal test for this).

[Ors Might]

No. The south is public property.

You are willfully misinterpreting Lumens point.

They are saying that given the amount of discrimination in the South on private property (segregated restaraunts for example), that black people would have to move North to expect equal service.

Being pedantic and working only by this nebulous concept of "the South" is silly.

Tbf, at least some of that discrimination only existed because it was mandated by state government, which does go against the spirit of the argument that individuals should be allowed to choose whom they allow on their private property. The rest of them, well, they had the good fortune of the powers that be supporting their given bigotry, I guess.

[La Xinga]

N-no? There's a difference between private property and right to discriminate, which doesn't exist.

What is the difference? Your arguing for a right to discriminate just using different words. By your logic the civil rights act should not have been passed

Double ?

There is no right to discriminate on public property, because it's not your property.

Your residence, however, or business, is your private property. You should have the right to do what you want to do with it.

No. The south is public property.

You are willfully misinterpreting Lumens point.

They are saying that given the amount of discrimination in the South on private property (segregated restaraunts for example), that black people would have to move North to expect equal service.

Being pedantic and working only by this nebulous concept of "the South" is silly.

Uhuh I'm sure I'm the one willfully misinterpreting the other ones point. Uhuh.

And they wouldn't. A lot of neighborhoods are today not by law but simply the way they are segregated. Example, Harlem in NY, Bronzeville in Chicago, View Park-Windsor Hills in LA, so they could set up their own restaurants and have it segregated or not.

[San Lumen]

What is the difference? Your arguing for a right to discriminate just using different words. By your logic the civil rights act should not have been passed

Double ?

There is no right to discriminate on public property, because it's not your property.

Your residence, however, or business, is your private property. You should have the right to do what you want to do with it.

You are willfully misinterpreting Lumens point.

They are saying that given the amount of discrimination in the South on private property (segregated restaraunts for example), that black people would have to move North to expect equal service.

Being pedantic and working only by this nebulous concept of "the South" is silly.

Uhuh I'm sure I'm the one willfully misinterpreting the other ones point. Uhuh.

And they wouldn't. A lot of neighborhoods are today not by law but simply the way they are segregated. Example, Harlem in NY, Bronzeville in Chicago, View Park-Windsor Hills in LA, so they could set up their own restaurants and have it segregated or not.

Therefore we ought to get rid of the civil rights act and all anti discrimination laws.

If a gay couple goes to a hotel they should hide their relationship because the hotel might refuse them service

No they could not have it segregated

[La Xinga]

Double ?

There is no right to discriminate on public property, because it's not your property.

Your residence, however, or business, is your private property. You should have the right to do what you want to do with it.

Uhuh I'm sure I'm the one willfully misinterpreting the other ones point. Uhuh.

And they wouldn't. A lot of neighborhoods are today not by law but simply the way they are segregated. Example, Harlem in NY, Bronzeville in Chicago, View Park-Windsor Hills in LA, so they could set up their own restaurants and have it segregated or not.

Therefore we ought to get rid of the civil rights act and all anti discrimination laws.

And why is that? I cannot see where you jump from here to there.

If a gay couple goes to a hotel they should hide their relationship because the hotel might refuse them service

I don't think all the hotels in the area will just refuse them, and if they will I'm not sure what they're doing there.

And if they really want, they could.

No they could not have it segregated

And why not?