|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 8, 2011 21:00:05 GMT -5
Can you explain your answer? Obviously Amaranth is does not feel like explaining anything. Pffft.... pffft.... HAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAAA!! S-sorry, it's just that it sounds so funny in my head... Bearing in mind, though, we're in perfect agreement about Amaranth. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Aug 8, 2011 21:02:04 GMT -5
Amaranth's point wasn't obvious?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 8, 2011 21:02:24 GMT -5
Obviously Amaranth is does not feel like explaining anything. Wrong. I was "obviously" bewildered that, in the context of the thread, this would need more elaboration. I asked a question in earnest; please do not speak for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 8, 2011 21:03:24 GMT -5
Amaranth's point wasn't obvious? Well, Zacksi's just taking pot shots, but M52's confusion does put up legit pause from me. However, his supposition was still false. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 8, 2011 21:08:31 GMT -5
Amaranth's point wasn't obvious? Not to Adeimantus who asked for an explanation. I just think that if you are going to comment on someones post and they ask for an explanation you should give them that. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 8, 2011 21:14:00 GMT -5
Amaranth's point wasn't obvious? Not to Adeimantus who asked for an explanation. I just think that if you are going to comment on someones post and they ask for an explanation you should give them that. And that merited putting words in my mouth. Awesome. Especially interesting, too. My post was not "obvious," yet my intent was. |
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Aug 8, 2011 21:16:41 GMT -5
Nickerson, um. You might want to look at just how blunt Amaranth's 'explanation' was. The explanation honestly doesn't need elaboration, it doesn't need explanation; It's an actual "Whites only" style sign from the original bad old days of un-legislated anti-black bigotry. It doesn't get any plainer than that. And it's entirely accurate, too; This is simply the same shit in later days against a new group of targets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 9, 2011 1:01:17 GMT -5
Amaranth's point wasn't obvious? Well, Zacksi's just taking pot shots, but M52's confusion does put up legit pause from me. However, his supposition was still false. You're right, I apologize for that. I was feeling a bit vindictive. That being said, some say that turnabout is fair play, eh? I guess that person needs to be punched in the gut. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 9, 2011 3:02:50 GMT -5
There are two issues here- the right of a buisness to do whatever it wants and the right of people to live in a society that doesn't discriminate against them baselessly.
Those are two absolutes. You might argue that one is more absolute than the other- I don't think reasonably- but, if you don't, you have to work out which will hurt a person least, which will cause the best good for society right now. So, right now, people think gays can be legitimately discriminated against, can be legitimately denied services on that basis. It's relatively common. There exists a system of bigotry and hate. Clearly the priority needs to be smashing that system, destroying it utterly. That system hurts people far more than some minor buisness regulation does.
That is, by the way, the primary reason i support the legalisation of gay marriage. The social system of discrimination is unacceptable, it hurts people and the government is enabling it's growth through bigoted policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Aug 9, 2011 3:38:51 GMT -5
ltfred, I may point out that businesses *cannot* do whatever they want by law, nor do they have the right to. You're confusing individuals with businesses; In America, an individual does have the right to be a bigoted idiot, sure, but a business may not discriminate on the basis of race or orientation, or unless otherwise pertinent and directly appropriate (A women's gym for example), gender.
In other words, what these people did is against Vermont state law, as a business, regardless of what the individuals in question might think. I don't quite know where you're from that a business has some magical right to do as they please, and regardless of what misguided individuals might think, it already is prohibited for them to discriminate against gays.
Hell, doing it as an individual in Canada here is even worse; Here, the first amendment will not protect them, and we have relatively strict hate crime laws. If the owners were Canadian, a lawsuit would be the least of their worries.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 9, 2011 3:50:49 GMT -5
ltfred, I may point out that businesses *cannot* do whatever they want by law, nor do they have the right to. My point is that, even if you take the Glibertarians at face value*, the buisness should not be allowed to not sell. * I agree that the Glibertarians are both bullshitting, assholes and wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Aug 9, 2011 4:18:39 GMT -5
Uh, Fred? I think you missed the part where I specifically mentioned that it's already legislated. It's a non-issue; Regardless of what people actually feel is right or wrong, the business did not have the legal right to deny service on the grounds of sexual orientation. Regardless of what a libertarian may have to say on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 9, 2011 6:59:57 GMT -5
Uh, Fred? I think you missed the part where I specifically mentioned that it's already legislated. It's a non-issue; Regardless of what people actually feel is right or wrong, the business did not have the legal right to deny service on the grounds of sexual orientation. Regardless of what a libertarian may have to say on the matter. They have a way around that, too. To whit- some laws are wrong. Might does not make right. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 7:29:17 GMT -5
Well, Zacksi's just taking pot shots, but M52's confusion does put up legit pause from me. However, his supposition was still false. You're right, I apologize for that. I was feeling a bit vindictive. That being said, some say that turnabout is fair play, eh? I guess that person needs to be punched in the gut. Following up a pot shot with another pot shot? Awesome. When I don't respond to any more of your posts because I'm ignoring your stupid ass, keep that in mind instead of whining how unfair it is or how evil I am or blaming it on my life instead of your idiocy. Since I know you will do the latter, because I'm the one of us with pattern recognition. Now, you might say announcing to someone you're ignoring them is childish. And ignoring the fundamental slowness of the target, I say you're right. But then, turnabout's fair play, MI RITE |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 7:32:28 GMT -5
There are two issues here- the right of a buisness to do whatever it wants and the right of people to live in a society that doesn't discriminate against them baselessly. 'Cept the first one isn't a right and never should be. |
|
