quote:

ORIGINAL: Whippedboy
Hilarious that dumb bitch vetoed the bill. Now the people who voted FOR it are left standing there with their dicks out!

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whippedboy
Hilarious that dumb bitch vetoed the bill. Now the people who voted FOR it are left standing there with their dicks out!

Terrible how people were allowed to freely identify their beliefs, wasn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whippedboy
Hilarious that dumb bitch vetoed the bill. Now the people who voted FOR it are left standing there with their dicks out!

Terrible how people were allowed to freely identify their beliefs, wasn't it?

People can identify their beliefs all they want, but as soon as they start trying to shove it down people's throats and taking away their civil or human rights, they cross a major line which a lot of people around the world don't agree with. No one is stopping others from privately practicing their religion, if they did then their religious freedoms would easily be considered under attack. There is no good reason why you can to force other people to abide by YOUR religion, since religion should be a personal thing, not something you force on others. If your religion doesn't agree with drugs, don't do drugs. If your religion doesn't agree with abortion, don't have an abortion. The same can be said for any number of issues. Religion can have an effect on YOUR life, but YOUR religion does not and should not have an effect on OTHERS.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whippedboy
Hilarious that dumb bitch vetoed the bill. Now the people who voted FOR it are left standing there with their dicks out!

Terrible how people were allowed to freely identify their beliefs, wasn't it?

People can identify their beliefs all they want, but as soon as they start trying to shove it down people's throats and taking away their civil or human rights, they cross a major line which a lot of people around the world don't agree with. No one is stopping others from privately practicing their religion, if they did then their religious freedoms would easily be considered under attack. There is no good reason why you can to force other people to abide by YOUR religion, since religion should be a personal thing, not something you force on others. If your religion doesn't agree with drugs, don't do drugs. If your religion doesn't agree with abortion, don't have an abortion. The same can be said for any number of issues. Religion can have an effect on YOUR life, but YOUR religion does not and should not have an effect on OTHERS.

Careful where you go with that, Tkman.

Brewer vetoed it. She will have to face the consequences (good or bad) for that.

Those that supported the legislation will have to face the consequences (good or bad) for that.

Those that didn't support the legislation will have to face the consequences (good or bad) for that.

I detest things having to be politically correct. I would much rather someone be allowed to speak his/her mind so that we know who we're dealing with. Allowing a business to decide how it's going to be run, and what clientele it wants is a great way for the general public to figure out who the people are that are running the business, and can, then, decide if they want to support that business or not.

If there was a bakery that (legally) refused to allow blacks in, what do you think would happen to that business? Would it see an increase in customers, a decrease in customers or no change in customers? IMO, it would lose more non-black customers than it would gain (I have to shake my head at the ignorance, but I won't dismiss that there will be those that go there because they won't serve blacks). It would lose any business of mine that it could have had, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Well I have never ever seen a rightist pushing to have a homosexual executed or imprisoned either, so I guess it's all good.

Lucy has adequately demonstrated your hypocrisy on that claim I hope.

well I am sure it was good enough for you and that's all that counts. Now you can go back to believing that the only evil in this country is on the right side and all the little libs just love everybody. Maybe at the next meeting they will let you stir the koolaid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whippedboy
Hilarious that dumb bitch vetoed the bill. Now the people who voted FOR it are left standing there with their dicks out!

Terrible how people were allowed to freely identify their beliefs, wasn't it?

People can identify their beliefs all they want, but as soon as they start trying to shove it down people's throats and taking away their civil or human rights, they cross a major line which a lot of people around the world don't agree with. No one is stopping others from privately practicing their religion, if they did then their religious freedoms would easily be considered under attack. There is no good reason why you can to force other people to abide by YOUR religion, since religion should be a personal thing, not something you force on others. If your religion doesn't agree with drugs, don't do drugs. If your religion doesn't agree with abortion, don't have an abortion. The same can be said for any number of issues. Religion can have an effect on YOUR life, but YOUR religion does not and should not have an effect on OTHERS.

Careful where you go with that, Tkman.

Brewer vetoed it. She will have to face the consequences (good or bad) for that.

Those that supported the legislation will have to face the consequences (good or bad) for that.

Those that didn't support the legislation will have to face the consequences (good or bad) for that.

I detest things having to be politically correct. I would much rather someone be allowed to speak his/her mind so that we know who we're dealing with. Allowing a business to decide how it's going to be run, and what clientele it wants is a great way for the general public to figure out who the people are that are running the business, and can, then, decide if they want to support that business or not.

If there was a bakery that (legally) refused to allow blacks in, what do you think would happen to that business? Would it see an increase in customers, a decrease in customers or no change in customers? IMO, it would lose more non-black customers than it would gain (I have to shake my head at the ignorance, but I won't dismiss that there will be those that go there because they won't serve blacks). It would lose any business of mine that it could have had, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Political correctness isn't about preventing people from speaking his or her mind, free speech doesn't enforce political correctness, or vice versa. This is about rights, not where certain people stand on various issues. Do you think businesses had it within their rights to deny black people service back in the early 1900s? Maybe the Irish before that? Maybe at the time, but these days when we think of that it's disgusting, so why should we tolerate that same kind of actions against a different minority group today? I'm fairly that equality is a human right, and what you're discussing seems to be in contest to that.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I grew up not very far at all from the former site of Pickrick's. You might want to look into it before making such claims.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Well I have never ever seen a rightist pushing to have a homosexual executed or imprisoned either, so I guess it's all good.

Lucy has adequately demonstrated your hypocrisy on that claim I hope.

well I am sure it was good enough for you and that's all that counts. Now you can go back to believing that the only evil in this country is on the right side and all the little libs just love everybody. Maybe at the next meeting they will let you stir the koolaid.

So it is demonstrated to you that there are people on the right who would like to kill and imprison you and you continue to deny their existence. Truly amazing.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I grew up not very far at all from the former site of Pickrick's. You might want to look into it before making such claims.

I made no claim about Pickrick's.

quote:

If there was a bakery that (legally) refused to allow blacks in, what do you think would happen to that business? Would it see an increase in customers, a decrease in customers or no change in customers? IMO, it would lose more non-black customers than it would gain

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I grew up not very far at all from the former site of Pickrick's. You might want to look into it before making such claims.

I made no claim about Pickrick's.

You claimed

quote:

If there was a bakery that (legally) refused to allow blacks in, what do you think would happen to that business? Would it see an increase in customers, a decrease in customers or no change in customers? IMO, it would lose more non-black customers than it would gain

Pickrick's served a working class neighborhood near Georgia Tech's campus and adamantly refused to integrate and did very good business right up to the day Wallace sold it. Some whites ate there because it wasn't integrated and some ate there because it was simply convenient.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I grew up not very far at all from the former site of Pickrick's. You might want to look into it before making such claims.

I made no claim about Pickrick's.

You claimed

quote:

If there was a bakery that (legally) refused to allow blacks in, what do you think would happen to that business? Would it see an increase in customers, a decrease in customers or no change in customers? IMO, it would lose more non-black customers than it would gain

Pickrick's served a working class neighborhood near Georgia Tech's campus and adamantly refused to integrate and did very good business right up to the day Wallace sold it. Some whites ate there because it wasn't integrated and some ate there because it was simply convenient.

What was it I said to TK about comparing racism of yesteryear to racism of today?

Now, I wasn't explicit about the timeframe of my assertion, but it was about a modern time. You know, like current. I wasn't even alive in 1965, so before Maddox closed it, he couldn't have had any of my business. But, do go on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Political correctness isn't about preventing people from speaking his or her mind, free speech doesn't enforce political correctness, or vice versa. This is about rights, not where certain people stand on various issues. Do you think businesses had it within their rights to deny black people service back in the early 1900s? Maybe the Irish before that? Maybe at the time, but these days when we think of that it's disgusting, so why should we tolerate that same kind of actions against a different minority group today? I'm fairly that equality is a human right, and what you're discussing seems to be in contest to that.

Yeah, political correctness certainly does prevent people from speaking their minds. That's the whole point of political correctness.

And, comparing the discrimination of yesteryear to today is ridiculous. Discriminating against blacks now would be a disaster for the business, not an oppression on the blacks, as it was more likely to be back then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Every person on earth is technically equal according to human rights, when someone discriminates others based on that, it's denying them a basic human right.