Started By
Message

re: Arizona religious bill that angered gays vetoed

Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:29 am to
Posted by weedGOKU666
THE 'COLA
Member since Jan 2013
3736 posts
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:29 am to
So I take it you would still support the bill if the discrimination happened to be racially or gender slanted?

I can see where you're coming from, I just disagree and decided to voice my opinion as snarkily as possible
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
72360 posts
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:41 am to
quote:

So I take it you would still support the bill if the discrimination happened to be racially or gender slanted?
I'd support the bill if it didn't specify any groups and allowed businesses to discriminate for whatever reasons they wanted.

Businesses that only serve gingers? A-ok.

Businesses that only serve blacks? A-ok.

Businesses that refuse to serve males? A-ok.

I could keep going, but I think you get the point.
Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 2/27/14 at 1:51 am to
quote:

So I take it you would still support the bill if the discrimination happened to be racially or gender slanted?


Of course, the individual that was rejected can use the free market composed of that business's peers to let everybody know that business is bigoted as frick and not to give them their money.

This happened in liberal land Oregon and a town there used the free market and cut off the business to customers and profits through peaceful means and not using gov't force. It's impossible for a business to have any recourse against the free market without the force of the state.

There should be no protected class laws forced on the private sector at all. It should only apply to the public sector in activities, buildings and professions that are publicly funded.

Bottom line here, to deny people property rights means to turn people into property owned by the state.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124542 posts
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:23 am to
quote:

So I take it you would still support the bill if the discrimination happened to be racially or gender slanted?
The veto mandates discrimination.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram