Chef Jim Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yes, that's true. I can only say the exact same thing and hear the exact same tired arguments for so long. It's been played out. Sorry if you're still looking for a fight. Maybe if somebody comes up with something new it might get interesting again, but this particular intellectual coward just can't see any new angle that hasn't been argued over and over and over again. Then why do you even bother coming over here? We cover many topics but they each go around and around. You narrow that by engaging in one topic only. What's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Gene would make a good Islamic fanatic what with his unflinching ways. lol Out of logical arguments, so just start spitting out insults. Ad hominem attacks are for the weak of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yes, I do. I wouldn't do business with you if you did, but I believe you have a constitutionally protected right to be an asshoe. That a private establishment should be allowed to discriminate? I never said it was anything other than opinion. Again, I believe people have a constitutionally protected right to be !@#$s. I agree with this completely, and would go so far as to say the Supreme Court decisions that allow for laws prohibiting private discrimination are a usurpation of the constitution and I really don't think there's much of a counterargument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Then why do you even bother coming over here? We cover many topics but they each go around and around. You narrow that by engaging in one topic only. What's the point? Well, that's slightly off topic...and none of your concern. Why does anyone do anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Well, that's slightly off topic...and none of your concern. Why does anyone do anything? None of my concern...... Yeah like I'm concerned. I think you need to look up the term rhetorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736287/Final-ruling-issued-against-polygamy-ban.html Polygamy is legal in the US now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yes, that's true. I can only say the exact same thing and hear the exact same tired arguments for so long. It's been played out. Sorry if you're still looking for a fight. Maybe if somebody comes up with something new it might get interesting again, but this particular intellectual coward just can't see any new angle that hasn't been argued over and over and over again. I find it odd that you continually seem to grow weary of those "same tired arguments" exactly at the point where the philosophic and logical underpinnings of your arguments are challenged, and exposed to be unable to stand up to scrutiny. At this point, rather than repond to those challenges on merit, you instead sputter out some version or another of, "the law is on my side", which it isn't, as Tom pointed out; and retreat. When that's the ultimate outcome of the logical progression of your positions, it's time to reconsider your positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 lol Out of logical arguments, so just start spitting out insults. Ad hominem attacks are for the weak of mind. You've spit out more insults in this thread than anyone else. Your only counter-argument has been to belittle opposing views. Hell, I provided you a substantive response - that I think you have a constitutionally guaranteed right under the First Amendment to be an !@#$ - and you chose to not respond and insult other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) http://www.dailymail...lygamy-ban.html Polygamy is legal in the US now. As well it should be. As an aside, I have no !@#$ing idea as to why anyone would want two wives. Two girlfriends? Abso-freakin-lutely. Two wives? !@#$ that noise. Edited August 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I find it odd that you continually seem to grow weary of those "same tired arguments" exactly at the point where the philosophic and logical underpinnings of your arguments are challenged, and exposed to be unable to stand up to scrutiny. At this point, rather than repond to those challenges on merit, you instead sputter out some version or another of, "the law is on my side", which it isn't, as Tom pointed out; and retreat. When that's the ultimate outcome of the logical progression of your positions, it's time to reconsider your positions. Everyone has opinions and beliefs on any given topic. Facts are interesting to me. Generally, opinions and beliefs are not, mostly because I've found that people rarely seem to change their opinions or beliefs based on argument. These types of discussions tend to be circular and I don't see the point. I understand where you all are coming from and I'm generally in favor of law staying out of peoples' private lives. My opinion on that idea stops, in this case, when it has impact on others, as I believe it does in this case. You're not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours. Therefore, since the facts have all been discussed at length, I have nothing left to really say. As well it should be. As an aside, I have no !@#$ing idea as to why anyone would want two wives. Two girlfriends? Abso-freakin-lutely. Two wives? !@#$ that noise. I couldn't agree more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Everyone has opinions and beliefs on any given topic. Facts are interesting to me. Generally, opinions and beliefs are not, mostly because I've found that people rarely seem to change their opinions or beliefs based on argument. These types of discussions tend to be circular and I don't see the point. I understand where you all are coming from and I'm generally in favor of law staying out of peoples' private lives. My opinion on that idea stops, in this case, when it has impact on others, as I believe it does in this case. You're not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours. Therefore, since the facts have all been discussed at length, I have nothing left to really say. Please lay out the terrible impact this situation has had on the lesbian couple? My response to this would be "glad we found out now before we gave you our money. Now let's find some other place to hold our event." Like Tom said it's not like they were denied any major life impacting service here. Get over it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 You've spit out more insults in this thread than anyone else. Your only counter-argument has been to belittle opposing views. Hell, I provided you a substantive response - that I think you have a constitutionally guaranteed right under the First Amendment to be an !@#$ - and you chose to not respond and insult other people. Coming from the king of belittlement and insult? You're the best man. I think the law trumps their Constitutional right in this case because they are a private company who serves the public. There are obviously different rules when one decides to form such an entity and receive the benefits of such an act. The farmers are free to act like complete !@#$s outside of the context of their private company which serves the public. Legally, this all seems very clear. These types of cases have had very consistent outcomes, especially lately with the whole gay marriage thing. Philosophically, you disagree - not because you're a bigot I think, but because of your general views on Constitutional rights and freedoms. To me, that's at least far more respectable. Please lay out the terrible impact this situation has had on the lesbian couple? My response to this would be "glad we found out now before we gave you our money. Now let's find some other place to hold our event." Like Tom said it's not like they were denied any major life impacting service here. Get over it and move on. I just think it's schitty to limit peoples' options (where they can shop, eat, congregate, get married in this case) based on things they can't control. I find the thought of allowing business owners who benefit from the public to treat citizens like that distasteful. You disagree. As far as moving on, well, I'm trying to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I think the law trumps their Constitutional right in this case because they are a private company who serves the public. There are obviously different rules when one decides to form such an entity and receive the benefits of such an act. The farmers are free to act like complete !@#$s outside of the context of their private company which serves the public. Legally, this all seems very clear. These types of cases have had very consistent outcomes, especially lately with the whole gay marriage thing. Philosophically, you disagree - not because you're a bigot I think, but because of your general views on Constitutional rights and freedoms. To me, that's at least far more respectable. The Constitution is the High Law of the Land. By definition, that means that there is no law that trumps it. Further, your interpretation would render the whole purpose of the Courts meaningless. The Courts rule on the Constitutionality of laws. If law, when passed, trumped Constitutional protections, there would be no need for Courts to make this determination, as the Constitution would become null and void. Case in point: the recent voiding of the DC gun ban. The laws banning guns were in opposition to Second Amendment protections, and the Courts ruled that those laws were null as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Coming from the king of belittlement and insult? You're the best man. I think the law trumps their Constitutional right in this case because they are a private company who serves the public. There are obviously different rules when one decides to form such an entity and receive the benefits of such an act. The farmers are free to act like complete !@#$s outside of the context of their private company which serves the public. Legally, this all seems very clear. These types of cases have had very consistent outcomes, especially lately with the whole gay marriage thing. Philosophically, you disagree - not because you're a bigot I think, but because of your general views on Constitutional rights and freedoms. To me, that's at least far more respectable. I just think it's schitty to limit peoples' options (where they can shop, eat, congregate, get married in this case) based on things they can't control. I find the thought of allowing business owners who benefit from the public to treat citizens like that distasteful. You disagree. As far as moving on, well, I'm trying to. You realize your argument is completely rooted in a double standard. You don't like people being limited by things they can't control. So you want to force other people to have less control. Do you have no faith in the compassion of Americans? Do you think if discrimination laws were revoked, black people wouldn't eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Coming from the king of belittlement and insult? You're the best man. I don't claim the high road, either. I think the law trumps their Constitutional right in this case because they are a private company who serves the public. There are obviously different rules when one decides to form such an entity and receive the benefits of such an act. The farmers are free to act like complete !@#$s outside of the context of their private company which serves the public. Legally, this all seems very clear. These types of cases have had very consistent outcomes, especially lately with the whole gay marriage thing. Philosophically, you disagree - not because you're a bigot I think, but because of your general views on Constitutional rights and freedoms. To me, that's at least far more respectable. Regardless of what either of us believes or philosophizes...Citizens United v. FEC is the most well-known of many court decisions establishing that corporations have the same Constitutional rights as individuals. But "there are obviously different rules when one decides to form such an entity and receive the benefits of such an act." So clearly they're not. And "legally, this all seems very clear" to you? Legally, it's anything but clear - statute and case law are anything but consistent when it comes to corporations. I just think it's schitty to limit peoples' options (where they can shop, eat, congregate, get married in this case) based on things they can't control. I find the thought of allowing business owners who benefit from the public to treat citizens like that distasteful. You disagree. The irony being that you support laws that limit people's options as to who they can associate with or what they can believe. You would force people into associations they'd rather not have. And what business owner DOESN'T benefit from the public? That's a fallacious argument, and an attempt to weasel out of the simple fact that you would force association on others. Although ultimately, a corporation benefits not from "the public," but from their client or customer base. And if they chose to make business decisions limit their customer base...more power to them. Allowing such people to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage seems a better solution to weeding out bigotry than forcing them to not be bigots. Bottom line, though: while we both think bigotry is reprehensible, you think it should be prohibited. I think it should be Constitutionally protected. That's really all this argument is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 You realize your argument is completely rooted in a double standard. You don't like people being limited by things they can't control. So you want to force other people to have less control. Do you have no faith in the compassion of Americans? Do you think if discrimination laws were revoked, black people wouldn't eat? You're trying to have a discussion with a person who believes everyone is wrong unless they agree with him on everything; who calls these people bigots, and then complains when someone calls him a name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 lol Out of logical arguments, so just start spitting out insults. Ad hominem attacks are for the weak of mind. Glad to see you admit that my other arguments were logical. Do you not have unflinching ways? Seems to me you are in favor of tossing the Constitution in the garbage can because you disagree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 You're trying to have a discussion with a person who believes everyone is wrong unless they agree with him on everything; who calls these people bigots, and then complains when someone calls him a name. Isn't that like half the posters here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Isn't that like half the posters here? Its 75% of the posters here. I've done the math. Only idiots and bigots think that number is around 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I'm not going to get carpal tunnel by attempting to respond to all of your Constitutuon rants. Again, I understand where you're coming from. That said, I'm curious to hear your explanations, given how unconstitutional you seem to think the anti discrimination laws are, as to how the Civil Rights Act has been allowed to stand since 1964. I see no significant difference between the interpretation of this ruling and the spirit of that act. You're trying to have a discussion with a person who believes everyone is wrong unless they agree with him on everything; who calls these people bigots, and then complains when someone calls him a name. At the very least you've described every poster in this thread. If you think it doesn't apply to you, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. Bottom line, though: while we both think bigotry is reprehensible, you think it should be prohibited. I think it should be Constitutionally protected. That's really all this argument is. That's exactly what I'm saying. We've all talked about our philosophies and we're all pretty set in our opinions and beliefs. Unlikely to change any of that, what's the point in re-hashing tired opinion-based arguments. Time to move on. Glad to see you admit that my other arguments were logical. Do you not have unflinching ways? Seems to me you are in favor of tossing the Constitution in the garbage can because you disagree with it. I've never known you to be any more logical than you have been in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts