PDA

View Full Version : The liberal Media vs Arizona



imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 03:38 PM
So, what is with the media spinning AZ 10th amendment right to pass a law that gives private businesses the ability to practice the 1st Amendment right after the federal government enslaved them to serve everyone? The AZ law doesnt target anyone, and doesnt exclude anyone from denying service to people they dont want to serve. Is it the liberal media that just hates anyone that wants to think for themselves and behave in any manor that doesnt harm any other individual physically in the name of the all powerfull federal government?

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 04:29 PM
As badly as you want to be able to go to a bar that only lets in heterosexual white Christian males, I'm sorry. It's not gonna happen for you. Get over it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 04:45 PM
As badly as you want to be able to go to a bar that only lets in heterosexual white Christian males, I'm sorry. It's not gonna happen for you. Get over it.

Wow, you guys really only have a one track mind dont you? So you dont want to know who the bigots are in your comminity? You dont want to know who will take your money because they are forced to and go use their proceeds hold Klan rallies? You dont want to allow a black business owner to deny service to a neo-nazi who wants a cake baked in the shape of a noose?

And think about what you said, is a bar that only allowed in males really a good bar to go to?

Why is it ok for there to be women only gyms?

And why is it ok for you to come on to my thread a racebait? This thread is about the constitution and the way liberal media spins the news about a low that gets a state back in line with the constitution.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 05:06 PM
Wow, you guys really only have a one track mind dont you? So you dont want to know who the bigots are in your comminity? You dont want to know who will take your money because they are forced to and go use their proceeds hold Klan rallies? You dont want to allow a black business owner to deny service to a neo-nazi who wants a cake baked in the shape of a noose?

And think about what you said, is a bar that only allowed in males really a good bar to go to?

Why is it ok for there to be women only gyms?

And why is it ok for you to come on to my thread a racebait? This thread is about the constitution and the way liberal media spins the news about a low that gets a state back in line with the constitution.

Businesses ARE allowed to turn anyone away, as long as it is not on the basis of discrimination against a protected group. I say this realizing that gays are not a protected group, yet, but here are some examples:

A business owner can turn a black person away for pretty much any reason, except for the reason that the person is black. They can turn any woman away for any reason, except for the reason that they are a woman. You get the point and I'm sure you knew this.

Basically, in the case you are talking about, they are making homosexuals a protected group. So, if business owners want to turn them away, they'd better find another reason.

I prefer it done this way, state by state. I know there are valid arguments against states making their own decisions on this, but if the state so chooses this path then so be it.

The business owners are more than welcome to do one of two things. Move the business or get over it. I don't want to turn this into another religion thread, but since you mentioned religious freedom, I'll say this. I've never seen anything in the bible that talks about not letting gays purchase stuff from you. This is one of those instances where the religious freedom card is being misused. As a matter of fact, I'd say that the bible these people are using as a basis for their argument is the same bible that says your supposed to be kind to everyone.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 05:24 PM
What they're also hiding behind is the First Amendment. Selling stuff to gays doesn't stop you from going to church on Sundays or praying five times a day while facing Mecca, or doing whatever other "practices" that your religion has.

Also, the other thing to keep in mind is that no one has a "right" to own a business. Owning a business is just like driving a car - you have to get a license, and with that license comes a list of dos and don'ts. You don't follow that list, your license gets revoked. If someone doesn't want to follow that list, then they don't need to have a business.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 05:43 PM
Businesses ARE allowed to turn anyone away, as long as it is not on the basis of discrimination against a protected group. I say this realizing that gays are not a protected group, yet, but here are some examples:

A business owner can turn a black person away for pretty much any reason, except for the reason that the person is black. They can turn any woman away for any reason, except for the reason that they are a woman. You get the point and I'm sure you knew this.

Basically, in the case you are talking about, they are making homosexuals a protected group. So, if business owners want to turn them away, they'd better find another reason.

I prefer it done this way, state by state. I know there are valid arguments against states making their own decisions on this, but if the state so chooses this path then so be it.

The business owners are more than welcome to do one of two things. Move the business or get over it. I don't want to turn this into another religion thread, but since you mentioned religious freedom, I'll say this. I've never seen anything in the bible that talks about not letting gays purchase stuff from you. This is one of those instances where the religious freedom card is being misused. As a matter of fact, I'd say that the bible these people are using as a basis for their argument is the same bible that says your supposed to be kind to everyone.

It's more complex even than this, and it is truly unfortunate that religion is/has to be used because 99% of any media covering this takes this law completely out of context.

Point 1: "homosexuality" in any tense, or any of its synonyms are found nowhere, anywhere, within the text of the law. The association of the word of any variety is completely by implication alone.

Point 2: What are we "allowing" here? And who is doing the "allowing" What this law does do is give specifically a form of legal shield of those who find it inconsistent with their religious beliefs to, as a for instance serve pork to someone who doesn't practice the religion, and not be sued. This could mean they don't want to put two male figurines on top of a wedding cake.

I think religion should be entirely a side item to this discussion. I believe very strongly that a raging racist should have the right not to provide their goods and services to every minority under the sun. Anyone familiar with the movie "Waiting" knows which party loses when people are forced to provide service to people they don't like. I think the Civil Rights movement went tragically too far when the mentality, that when you provide your services to the public, you must be forced to provide your services to every person that walks through your door when you belong to the "protected classes". Here's why, it protects the "bigots" in society from suffering the consequences of their ignorance by going out of business. I for one wish every racist business owner in society would declare with a neon sign that they refuse their services to black people so I can avoid helping them profit by purchasing their goods and services. Forcing the ignorant in society into the closet is no better an idea now than DADT was for homosexuals in the military then. If this law does not get passed, one maybe two people will get sued and lose before the other business owners find more insidious ways to use their ignorance against those who they are forced to do business with. These same people will be fully funded by the people they leverage their hatreds against. It won't open their eyes to "diversity", they'll be twice as resentful of their targets than they were before. I want these businesses to get negative ratings on Jane's lists everywhere and have the free market punish them fully if they are truly bigoted.

MrMiracle
02-26-2014, 05:43 PM
There's another element to this story which I don't see discussed very often. Photography is an established artform. Baking is considered a culinary artform. Even decorating could be classified as an artform. Making a business out of these things doesn't take away the artistic component of them.

So should a court be able to force an individual to produce an artistic work against their will?

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 05:58 PM
Gee, are some people really naive enough to believe that companies who practice discrimination will go out business by turning away potential customers?

Woolworth's, McCrory's, Murphy's, Kresge's, Newberry's and just about every five and dime you can think of has existed for a whole century before they all croaked in the 1990's. And those businesses were doing just fine for the first 70 years, before blacks were able to eat at the lunch counter.

Also, what if every business in a particular municipality discriminates? Then what? What are the people being discriminated against going to do?

The mentality that businesses should be allowed to discriminate... I see it all over the internet, and every time... it's only white males who say it. This is the one group that has the easiest time saying it, because they're fully where that no matter where the go in this country, there will ALWAYS be someone willing to do business with them. Others don't have that luxury.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 06:04 PM
Gee, are some people really naive enough to believe that companies who practice discrimination will go out business by turning away potential customers?

Woolworth's, McCrory's, Murphy's, Kresge's, Newberry's and just about every five and dime you can think of has existed for a whole century before they all croaked in the 1990's. And those businesses were doing just fine for the first 70 years, before blacks were able to eat at the lunch counter.

Also, what if every business in a particular municipality discriminates? Then what? What are the people being discriminated against going to do?

The mentality that businesses should be allowed to discriminate... I see it all over the internet, and every time... it's only white males who say it. This is the one group that has the easiest time saying it, because they're fully where that no matter where the go in this country, there will ALWAYS be someone willing to do business with them. Others don't have that luxury.

The world has changed just a little bit since the 1860's, welcome to this century...

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:10 PM
Gee, are some people really naive enough to believe that companies who practice discrimination will go out business by turning away potential customers?

Woolworth's, McCrory's, Murphy's, Kresge's, Newberry's and just about every five and dime you can think of has existed for a whole century before they all croaked in the 1990's. And those businesses were doing just fine for the first 70 years, before blacks were able to eat at the lunch counter.

Also, what if every business in a particular municipality discriminates? Then what? What are the people being discriminated against going to do?

The mentality that businesses should be allowed to discriminate... I see it all over the internet, and every time... it's only white males who say it. This is the one group that has the easiest time saying it, because they're fully where that no matter where the go in this country, there will ALWAYS be someone willing to do business with them. Others don't have that luxury.

Unfortunately, people are always going to find a way to discriminate, especially when it comes to businesses. For instance, look at night clubs. Especially the high class ones. They discriminate on a daily basis. The people at the door decide who gets let in and who doesn't. It's based off of looks, sex, perception of wealth/class, age, etc. Should these clubs be required to let everyone in?

Personally, I can't fathom why any business owner would turn any customer away.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:13 PM
There's another element to this story which I don't see discussed very often. Photography is an established artform. Baking is considered a culinary artform. Even decorating could be classified as an artform. Making a business out of these things doesn't take away the artistic component of them.

So should a court be able to force an individual to produce an artistic work against their will?

This is very simple. If I'm a baker and I am against homosexual marriage, I don't have to turn away any customer. I just don't have to serve a product that caters to homosexuals. I don't have to have a same sex couple figurine as a product in my bakery. Anyone can shop there, anyone can buy there. There will never be a law that tells someone what products they MUST sell in a store.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 06:16 PM
This is very simple. If I'm a baker and I am against homosexual marriage, I don't have to turn away any customer. I just don't have to serve a product that caters to homosexuals. I don't have to have a same sex couple figurine as a product in my bakery. Anyone can shop there, anyone can buy there. There will never be a law that tells someone what products they MUST sell in a store.

Are you certain? What if someone chooses to sue for not doing that, are your sure it would win?

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:23 PM
Are you certain? What if someone chooses to sue for not doing that, are your sure it would win?

Not certain...they probably would sue...not sure they could win, though. Can I sue a health food store for only selling health food? Can I sue a black barber shop for only selling hair products for blacks? Can I sue a restaurant for only selling Coke products? I'm sure I could, but don't think it would be successful. A store is only going to have the products they have. If they choose not to stock something for everyone I really don't see a problem.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 06:24 PM
Businesses ARE allowed to turn anyone away, as long as it is not on the basis of discrimination against a protected group. I say this realizing that gays are not a protected group, yet, but here are some examples:

A business owner can turn a black person away for pretty much any reason, except for the reason that the person is black. They can turn any woman away for any reason, except for the reason that they are a woman. You get the point and I'm sure you knew this.

Basically, in the case you are talking about, they are making homosexuals a protected group. So, if business owners want to turn them away, they'd better find another reason.

I prefer it done this way, state by state. I know there are valid arguments against states making their own decisions on this, but if the state so chooses this path then so be it.

The business owners are more than welcome to do one of two things. Move the business or get over it. I don't want to turn this into another religion thread, but since you mentioned religious freedom, I'll say this. I've never seen anything in the bible that talks about not letting gays purchase stuff from you. This is one of those instances where the religious freedom card is being misused. As a matter of fact, I'd say that the bible these people are using as a basis for their argument is the same bible that says your supposed to be kind to everyone.

Actually it kind of does. If the church you attend believes homosexuality is a sin, then in the bible they are told to take 4 steps in confronting the sin, just as they would and adulterating spouse who is chosing to walk away from a marriage.
1, confront the person one on one.
2, confront the person with a group of 2 or 3.
3, confront them with the entire congrigation.
4, shun them from the church. Being as a business owner is part of the chuch, I can see how this is played out in their mind to deny services.

I know in this ultra PC world we are living in, these are all unacceptable, but it is in there and I am sorry I dont have the passage infront of me.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 06:28 PM
What they're also hiding behind is the First Amendment. Selling stuff to gays doesn't stop you from going to church on Sundays or praying five times a day while facing Mecca, or doing whatever other "practices" that your religion has.

Also, the other thing to keep in mind is that no one has a "right" to own a business. Owning a business is just like driving a car - you have to get a license, and with that license comes a list of dos and don'ts. You don't follow that list, your license gets revoked. If someone doesn't want to follow that list, then they don't need to have a business.

You have every right to own a business in this country. Your mind set that the government owns everything and passes out leases to individuals is collectivism that socialism preaches and breeds things like Jim Crow laws where the oppression and descrimination is mandated by the government. The government is only there to protect the individuals private property and business, not issue it. That is what America was founded on and why we have great inovations that come from peoples homes and not crap like Obamacare website.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 06:28 PM
Not certain...they probably would sue...not sure they could win, though. Can I sue a health food store for only selling health food? Can I sue a black barber shop for only selling hair products for blacks? Can I sue a restaurant for only selling Coke products? I'm sure I could, but don't think it would be successful. A store is only going to have the products they have. If they choose not to stock something for everyone I really don't see a problem.

It's an interesting question because those places that do bake cakes, have pretty much all of the materials they need on hand, and often serve customized cakes, would have to have a pretty darned good excuse why they can't place two groom figurines side-by-side and write "Congratulations, Steve and Fisher" using a frosting pen. I think a semi-competent lawyer could make the case the customer is being discriminated against.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:32 PM
Actually it kind of does. If the church you attend believes homosexuality is a sin, then in the bible they are told to take 4 steps in confronting the sin, just as they would and adulterating spouse who is chosing to walk away from a marriage.
1, confront the person one on one.
2, confront the person with a group of 2 or 3.
3, confront them with the entire congrigation.
4, shun them from the church. Being as a business owner is part of the chuch, I can see how this is played out in their mind to deny services.

I know in this ultra PC world we are living in, these are all unacceptable, but it is in there and I am sorry I dont have the passage infront of me.

I'd say the example of Jesus would be to do exactly the opposite. If the church wants to restrict people, I have no problem. Many churches do that already. Hell, if you aren't Mormon you can't even walk into a Tabernacle.

But, unless the business is part of the church then they don't have a leg to stand on.

My question is this. In this hypothetical bakery, is the owner going to turn away adulterers, liars, etc? I highly doubt it. And that's where they contradiction comes in. If this was really a religious issue, the owner would be throwing a fit about serving any sinner which, in turn, means they would serve no one.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:34 PM
It's an interesting question because those places that do bake cakes, have pretty much all of the materials they need on hand, and often serve customized cakes, would have to have a pretty darned good excuse why they can't place two groom figurines side-by-side and write "Congratulations, Steve and Fisher" using a frosting pen. I think a semi-competent lawyer could make the case the customer is being discriminated against.

I've ordered flowers several times for my wife and have been told on more than one occasion that the bouquet I'm looking for is not available. I can either order a different style or try somewhere else. I wonder if I could sue?

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 06:34 PM
The world has changed just a little bit since the 1860's, welcome to this century...

The ONLY thing that has changed are the laws. Laws only change what people conform to. Not what they believe.


Unfortunately, people are always going to find a way to discriminate, especially when it comes to businesses. For instance, look at night clubs. Especially the high class ones. They discriminate on a daily basis. The people at the door decide who gets let in and who doesn't. It's based off of looks, sex, perception of wealth/class, age, etc. Should these clubs be required to let everyone in?

Personally, I can't fathom why any business owner would turn any customer away.

And the number of such clubs are dwindling every year. NYC actually outlawed this practice back in the 90's, for example; and many other cities have done the same.


This is very simple. If I'm a baker and I am against homosexual marriage, I don't have to turn away any customer. I just don't have to serve a product that caters to homosexuals. I don't have to have a same sex couple figurine as a product in my bakery. Anyone can shop there, anyone can buy there.

Fair enough, but I'm sure you can cut off the male portions from two figurines and put them on the same cake. Or maybe you actually have some individual figurines in different poses that exist for customization purposes, where you can use two of those figurines.


There will never be a law that tells someone what products they MUST sell in a store.

No, but there ARE laws that tell you that IF you sell something, there are conditions that such products have to meet; and that IF those conditions aren't met, then you CAN'T sell those products.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 06:37 PM
You have every right to own a business in this country.

No, you don't. It requires a license. No license, no business. And there are requirements that must be met to obtain and keep the license that vary from city to city.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:37 PM
The ONLY thing that has changed are the laws. Laws only change what people conform to. Not what they believe.



And the number of such clubs are dwindling every year. NYC actually outlawed this practice back in the 90's, for example; and many other cities have done the same.



Fair enough, but I'm sure you can cut off the male portions from two figurines and put them on the same cake. Or maybe you actually have some individual figurines in different poses that exist for customization purposes, where you can use two of those figurines.



No, but there ARE laws that tell you that IF you sell something, there are conditions that such products have to meet; and that IF those conditions aren't met, then you CAN'T sell those products.

So do you think bakeries are required to have figurines that represent every race? And how would that be done without the figure being a stereotypical figure which, on it's own, would cause an issue.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 06:39 PM
Gee, are some people really naive enough to believe that companies who practice discrimination will go out business by turning away potential customers?

Woolworth's, McCrory's, Murphy's, Kresge's, Newberry's and just about every five and dime you can think of has existed for a whole century before they all croaked in the 1990's. And those businesses were doing just fine for the first 70 years, before blacks were able to eat at the lunch counter.

Also, what if every business in a particular municipality discriminates? Then what? What are the people being discriminated against going to do?

The mentality that businesses should be allowed to discriminate... I see it all over the internet, and every time... it's only white males who say it. This is the one group that has the easiest time saying it, because they're fully where that no matter where the go in this country, there will ALWAYS be someone willing to do business with them. Others don't have that luxury.

And where are they now in this day and age? Yes, a racist business can survive, if they are small enough to accomadate their shrinking pool of customers. You seem to forget that Jim Crow laws were the government telling private businesses they couldnt sell to mixed race customers. And it was the government that stopped any new businesses from opening next to those racist stores.

So you are saying that if blacks set up shop say "No Whites", there wont be anyone that visited their store? No other group, not even blacks, would be a customer of that store? Now granted, you would be alienating roughly 60% of the people of this nation, but so would whites doing the opposite since MANY whites dont want to do business with that kind of establishment. Immagine if Facebook said "no colors" allowed? In the beginning they said no one other than Harvard students, then Ivy league, then eventually they opened to everyone.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 06:41 PM
Are you certain? What if someone chooses to sue for not doing that, are your sure it would win?

Depends on who the defendant is. If I sued a Muslim establishment for not serving pork, think I would win?

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 06:44 PM
So do you think bakeries are required to have figurines that represent every race? And how would that be done without the figure being a stereotypical figure which, on it's own, would cause an issue.

I actually have friends in New York that own a cake business. What I do know is that, at least with who they order the figurines from, the packages come assorted. Not saying that you can't buy figurines that are all of one race or whatever; it's just that that's the product that I've seen inside the shop.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:45 PM
Depends on who the defendant is. If I sued a Muslim establishment for not serving pork, think I would win?

Or expect a Jewish Deli to sell non-kosher?

Or a restaurant in California to sell sweet tea???????????

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 06:47 PM
Depends on who the defendant is. If I sued a Muslim establishment for not serving pork, think I would win?

One would hope not, devil being in the details. You could potentially do that and what very well might happen is they may prefer to just pay you off vice have all of the negative publicity of having it actually going in front of a judge. That's the realities of being a business owner in the realm of frivolous torts, even when you win you lose.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:47 PM
I actually have friends in New York that own a cake business. What I do know is that, at least with who they order the figurines from, the packages come assorted. Not saying that you can't buy figurines that are all of one race or whatever; it's just that that's the product that I've seen inside the shop.

Fair enough...that's why I asked.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 06:48 PM
You seem to forget that Jim Crow laws were the government telling private businesses they couldnt sell to mixed race customers. And it was the government that stopped any new businesses from opening next to those racist stores.

After reading this shit, my conversation with you on this is over.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 06:48 PM
I'd say the example of Jesus would be to do exactly the opposite. If the church wants to restrict people, I have no problem. Many churches do that already. Hell, if you aren't Mormon you can't even walk into a Tabernacle. That was after the prostitute renounced her sin and vowed not to do it anymore.


But, unless the business is part of the church then they don't have a leg to stand on.The people are part of the church since their tith goes to run the church. You think the church wants drug or "filthy" money?


My question is this. In this hypothetical bakery, is the owner going to turn away adulterers, liars, etc? I highly doubt it. And that's where they contradiction comes in. If this was really a religious issue, the owner would be throwing a fit about serving any sinner which, in turn, means they would serve no one.
Can you prove, as the baker, the people are adulterers? Sin is a certainty, its whether or not people are actively living in the sins. Being homosexual, and being married as one, is actively living in the sin. If "Joe the baker" sees Cindy come in for her 3rd wedding cake, and he knows why she got divorced (aka she cheated and left her husbands), then it is up to him to deny the service, if he wasnt being a hypocrite.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 06:50 PM
That was after the prostitute renounced her sin and vowed not to do it anymore.

The people are part of the church since their tith goes to run the church. You think the church wants drug or "filthy" money?


Can you prove, as the baker, the people are adulterers? Sin is a certainty, its whether or not people are actively living in the sins. Being homosexual, and being married as one, is actively living in the sin. If "Joe the baker" sees Cindy come in for her 3rd wedding cake, and he knows why she got divorced (aka she cheated and left her husbands), then it is up to him to deny the service, if he wasnt being a hypocrite.

I can assure you that we are all actively living in sin.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 06:53 PM
The ONLY thing that has changed are the laws. Laws only change what people conform to. Not what they believe.


Laws have a nearly null effect on society unless the culture of the society agrees with it. We are quite willing to crack down on child molesters, but let's just state the average citizen gets a little bit put out when they get pullled over driving 1 MPH over the speed limit on an interstate.

Society itself has changed pretty drastically. The things that have become socially acceptable and socially unacceptable has nearly inverted.

I will say this, if there really is any place in the USA where the majority of businesses actively discriminate against whatever variety of minority, that is exactly where to go and start a business and advertise "We Proudly Serve Said Minority!" It'll be the smartest move since the sale of Girl Scout Cookies outside of California Medical Marijuana dispensaries.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 06:54 PM
No, you don't. It requires a license. No license, no business. And there are requirements that must be met to obtain and keep the license that vary from city to city.

For tax purposes so the government can take part of you production and give it to someone else. Another great law. Do you really think in the beginning of the US, people had to file for a license to shoe a horse? Honestly, I looked and I didnt see any references to federally mandated business licenses. State or local maybe?

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 06:56 PM
I've ordered flowers several times for my wife and have been told on more than one occasion that the bouquet I'm looking for is not available. I can either order a different style or try somewhere else. I wonder if I could sue?

Absolutely you could, and if the lawyer could make a reasonable case that those materials were in fact available at the time of your call you very well might win or at least receive a settlement. In fact, I'd go as far as to say in the majority of frivolous lawsuits the end result will still be in a settlement.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 07:00 PM
Absolutely you could, and if the lawyer could make a reasonable case that those materials were in fact available at the time of your call you very well might win or at least receive a settlement. In fact, I'd go as far as to say in the majority of frivolous lawsuits the end result will still be in a settlement.But if they weren't available, I'm not required to provide it. Of course, if they advertise it on the website, or whatever, then yes, they better have it for me. But they aren't required to keep any specific bouquets on hand.

If I own a bakery and order figures in sets, I can't see being required to break up those sets. Maybe I'm wrong and naïve. My opinion is that a business owner should be required to serve everybody who comes in the store as long as they are asking for products I have. I shouldn't, however, be required to have products for everyone who comes into the store. It's just not possible.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 07:04 PM
After reading this shit, my conversation with you on this is over.

So you deny the fact, even when you yourself say the private businesses need a license from the government to open a business, that the government didnt force businesses to be segregated to get said license? And then deny any businesses that would open next to the segregated business? Glad you show your unwillingness to concede defeat when presented with FACTS.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 07:06 PM
I will say this, if there really is any place in the USA where the majority of businesses actively discriminate against whatever variety of minority, that is exactly where to go and start a business and advertise "We Proudly Serve Said Minority!" It'll be the smartest move since the sale of Girl Scout Cookies outside of California Medical Marijuana dispensaries.

There are two problems with this:

1. There is no guarantee that this will happen, regardless of how good idea it may seem; and

2. even if it DID happen, if it's in a certain area where the majority of a certain group is racist, then the "We Proudly Serve Said Minority" business won't last very long.

What immediately comes to mind is a regional grocery store in the southern mid-Atlantic area, called Harris-Teeter. They don't really carry high end products, but their prices are high (for a example - a 32 oz bottle of Powerade was over $2 the last time I went - which is even higher than the price at 7-Eleven or any other convenience store). I always wondered why, but then it hit me - EVERY Harris-Teeter that I know of is in a rich neighborhood (with the exception of the newly built one at Ward's Corner). The prices appear to be designed to keep lower income people out of the store, and attract customers who feel that it's worth paying the extra money to not be around poor people when grocery shopping.

Interesting concept, right? You probably see this everyday without even noticing it - how many people do you know who shop at Target, because they have a problem with "trashy" Walmart clientele... knowing fully well that the prices are higher at Target?

There is PLENTY of profit to be made from people's prejudices.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 07:09 PM
So you deny the fact, even when you yourself say the private businesses need a license from the government to open a business, that the government didnt force businesses to be segregated to get said license? And then deny any businesses that would open next to the segregated business? Glad you show your unwillingness to concede defeat when presented with FACTS.

Yep, go ahead pat yourself on the back and claim victory when someone decides that your ignorance isn't worth addressing. Yep, keep patting that back of yours.

TJMAC77SP
02-26-2014, 07:11 PM
In the interest of full disclosure............

1. I have read only the first page of this thread
2. I looked into the details of SB1062 and.................

I have a fundamental issue with any law that spells out the right and ability of anyone (person or business) that can lawfully refuse service to someone for the sole reason of something as ingrained as sexual orientation.

I say this while maintaining the position that people have the right to their religious beliefs. However, sometimes those religious beliefs must be held a little more closely (like when you service the public as a whole).

This law just doesn't sit well with me.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 07:18 PM
There are two problems with this:

1. There is no guarantee that this will happen, regardless of how good idea it may seem; and

2. even if it DID happen, if it's in a certain area where the majority of a certain group is racist, then the "We Proudly Serve Said Minority" business won't last very long.

What immediately comes to mind is a regional grocery store in the southern mid-Atlantic area, called Harris-Teeter. They don't really carry high end products, but their prices are high (for a example - a 32 oz bottle of Powerade was over $2 the last time I went - which is even higher than the price at 7-Eleven or any other convenience store). I always wondered why, but then it hit me - EVERY Harris-Teeter that I know of is in a rich neighborhood (with the exception of the newly built one at Ward's Corner). The prices appear to be designed to keep lower income people out of the store, and attract customers who feel that it's worth paying the extra money to not be around poor people when grocery shopping.

Interesting concept, right? You probably see this everyday without even noticing it - how many people do you know who shop at Target, because they have a problem with "trashy" Walmart clientele... knowing fully well that the prices are higher at Target?

There is PLENTY of profit to be made from people's prejudices.

That's quite a conspiracy theory, almost Michael Moore worthy.

I think it has more to do with the misconceptions consumers have that higher prices means higher quality overall, especially at grocery stores.

Would you suggest that the government regulate prices on products? Should a 32 oz bottle of PowerAde be exactly the same price in every store?

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 07:21 PM
In the interest of full disclosure............

1. I have read only the first page of this thread
2. I looked into the details of SB1062 and.................

I have a fundamental issue with any law that spells out the right and ability of anyone (person or business) that can lawfully refuse service to someone for the sole reason of something as ingrained as sexual orientation.

I say this while maintaining the position that people have the right to their religious beliefs. However, sometimes those religious beliefs must be held a little more closely (like when you service the public as a whole).

This law just doesn't sit well with me.

In my hypothetical bakery, I'm not refusing service to anyone. I will sell to anybody who comes in. I just may not have the product they want.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 07:29 PM
But if they weren't available, I'm not required to provide it. Of course, if they advertise it on the website, or whatever, then yes, they better have it for me. But they aren't required to keep any specific bouquets on hand.

If I own a bakery and order figures in sets, I can't see being required to break up those sets. Maybe I'm wrong and naïve. My opinion is that a business owner should be required to serve everybody who comes in the store as long as they are asking for products I have. I shouldn't, however, be required to have products for everyone who comes into the store. It's just not possible.

It depends heavily yes, you can always sue, you can't always find a lawyer willing to take on the case and you can't always win. In an ideal, black and white world you're right. Some things are fairly ambiguous though. If you couldn't get a bouquet you normally would because they're out of season, as a business you would have the burden of proof to show what components are unavailable and why. Sometimes the sheer research and footwork required to provide such evidence is more costly in time and resources than a simple settlement.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 07:29 PM
That's quite a conspiracy theory, almost Michael Moore worthy.

It might be a "conspiracy theory," but not one without actual incidents of this occuring. There are hotels, for example, that celebrities use that charge over $22,000 a night - and they usually don't have any more amenities than hotels that only cost a couple hundred a night. The purpose of these hotels is to allow people, like celebrities, to be in an environment away from common people.


I think it has more to do with the misconceptions consumers have that higher prices means higher quality overall, especially at grocery stores.

Harris-Teeter is also the only chain grocery store in the region that does not accept EBT or WIC. That, in itself, should tell you that they're selective of their clientele. USN-Retired would LOVE Harris-Teeter, if he doesn't already.


Would you suggest that the government regulate prices on products? Should a 32 oz bottle of PowerAde be exactly the same price in every store?

The government already does for certain items. But that's not what I'm talking about or trying to argue about. What I'm trying to tell you that is there is plenty of money to be made from people's prejudices. I don't believe that Target is intentionally doing it - as their prices may be higher than Walmart's, but not "prohibitively" high. However, they ARE benefitting from people's desire to not be around Walmart clientele.

The bottomline is this: people saying that a business will fail because they discriminate based on race or sexual orientation are WRONG.

efmbman
02-26-2014, 07:34 PM
I think Arizona learned a lesson back in 1993 when the NFL relocated the Super Bowl after voters did not approve of making MLK's birthday a holiday. Phoenix is currently slated to host Super Bowl XLIX. I bet there are informal channels of communication that are letting Brewer know that Super Bowl XLIX (and the economic impact of it) are on the line. A shame that is what it took to get Arizona to acknowledge MLK, but it certainly seemed to work.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 07:35 PM
There are two problems with this:

1. There is no guarantee that this will happen, regardless of how good idea it may seem; and

2. even if it DID happen, if it's in a certain area where the majority of a certain group is racist, then the "We Proudly Serve Said Minority" business won't last very long.

What immediately comes to mind is a regional grocery store in the southern mid-Atlantic area, called Harris-Teeter. They don't really carry high end products, but their prices are high (for a example - a 32 oz bottle of Powerade was over $2 the last time I went - which is even higher than the price at 7-Eleven or any other convenience store). I always wondered why, but then it hit me - EVERY Harris-Teeter that I know of is in a rich neighborhood (with the exception of the newly built one at Ward's Corner). The prices appear to be designed to keep lower income people out of the store, and attract customers who feel that it's worth paying the extra money to not be around poor people when grocery shopping.

Interesting concept, right? You probably see this everyday without even noticing it - how many people do you know who shop at Target, because they have a problem with "trashy" Walmart clientele... knowing fully well that the prices are higher at Target?

There is PLENTY of profit to be made from people's prejudices.

Well, it could be that, or it could just be that they figure they can keep prices high because there are more revenues to be had just in keeping them high in that location. Washington DC is a good example, where all the locals are living fat under our fine governing institution.

As for entire geographic regions that are primarily racist/bigoted, I'm not sure if they exists anymore outside of some swamp town in Mississippi, our culture has changed quite a bit in this regard, even in the last couple of decades.

Simple business logic though, if you can find a location where there is 0% supply and 100% demand, not a bad idea to see if there's a way to supply the demand, you will likely profit, whether that be via a local store or internet-based delivery, there are very viable means to earn a profit where the innovative become involved.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 07:37 PM
It might be a "conspiracy theory," but not one without actual incidents of this occuring. There are hotels, for example, that celebrities use that charge over $22,000 a night - and they usually don't have any more amenities than hotels that only cost a couple hundred a night. The purpose of these hotels is to allow people, like celebrities, to be in an environment away from common people. It's about supply and demand. I promise you that if they couldn't fill their rooms they'd drop the prices. It's not about anything other than making money.




Harris-Teeter is also the only chain grocery store in the region that does not accept EBT or WIC. That, in itself, should tell you that they're selective of their clientele. USN-Retired would LOVE Harris-Teeter, if he doesn't already. I don't know their intentions. Maybe you're right.




The government already does for certain items. But that's not what I'm talking about or trying to argue about. What I'm trying to tell you that is there is plenty of money to be made from people's prejudices. I don't believe that Target is intentionally doing it - as their prices may be higher than Walmart's, but not "prohibitively" high. However, they ARE benefitting from people's desire to not be around Walmart clientele. Sure, and Sears benefits by clientele who don't want to shop at Target, and Rodeo Drive stores benefit from peoples desired to not shop at Sears. I don't think it has anything to do with any prejudice, though. It has to do with making the most money possible.

One thing that will always be stronger than prejudice is greed.

The bottomline is this: people saying that a business will fail because they discriminate based on race or sexual orientation are WRONG.[/QUOTE]

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 07:46 PM
Well, it could be that, or it could just be that they figure they can keep prices high because there are more revenues to be had just in keeping them high in that location. Washington DC is a good example, where all the locals are living fat under our fine governing institution...

...Simple business logic though, if you can find a location where there is 0% supply and 100% demand, not a bad idea to see if there's a way to supply the demand, you will likely profit, whether that be via a local store or internet-based delivery, there are very viable means to earn a profit where the innovative become involved.

As a fellow squid, I'm sure you know about Ghent. Norfolk's uptown. Harris-Teeter is on the 1300 block of Colonial Ave. However, just a few blocks north and west, there's Farm Fresh on the 700 block of West 21st street, and just a few block northwest of that, there's a Food Lion on the 2400 block of colley Ave. Granted, anything past the 2300 block of Colley Ave is no longer in Ghent, but in Park Place... Park Place has it's reputation, but in recent years, park place is attracting would-be Ghent residents, who don't have Ghent money - so it's more diverse now.

Either way, Food Lion is the cheapest of the three, and if anyone in Ghent does not feel safe going north of the tracks to that Food Lion, there's still Farm Fresh.

But Harris-Teeter still thrives. So much, in fact that about five or six years ago, they tore down their old store and built a new one. Just because.

So no, it's not a situation of taking advantage of a monopoly.


As for entire geographic regions that are primarily racist/bigoted, I'm not sure if they exists anymore outside of some swamp town in Mississippi, our culture has changed quite a bit in this regard, even in the last couple of decades.

You'd be surprised. A racist business would probably thrive in segregated urban areas like Memphis and St. Louis.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 07:53 PM
As a fellow squid, I'm sure you know about Ghent. Norfolk's uptown. Harris-Teeter is on the 1300 block of Colonial Ave. However, just a few blocks north and west, there's Farm Fresh on the 700 block of West 21st street, and just a few block northwest of that, there's a Food Lion on the 2400 block of colley Ave. Granted, anything past the 2300 block of Colley Ave is no longer in Ghent, but in Park Place... Park Place has it's reputation, but in recent years, park place is attracting would-be Ghent residents, who don't have Ghent money - so it's more diverse now.

Either way, Food Lion is the cheapest of the three, and if anyone in Ghent does not feel safe going north of the tracks to that Food Lion, there's still Farm Fresh.

But Harris-Teeter still thrives. So much, in fact that about five or six years ago, they tore down their old store and built a new one. Just because.

So no, it's not a situation of taking advantage of a monopoly.



You'd be surprised. A racist business would probably thrive in segregated urban areas like Memphis and St. Louis.

There is a Sears and a JcPenny in the mall. Pretty much the same stuff. JcPenny charges much more on most items. People buy it, not because they don't want to shop at Sears, but because they are under the assumption that the quality of the more expensive stuff is better.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 07:54 PM
It's about supply and demand. I promise you that if they couldn't fill their rooms they'd drop the prices. It's not about anything other than making money.

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of low volume/high margin vs high volume/low margin.

There are prostitutes walking the streets of Atlantic City that charge thousands of dollars for their services (I only know about this, because one guy I worked with blew over half his enlistment bonus on one), and if they only get one customer every two weeks, they're still doing better than many $100 hookers.


Sure, and Sears benefits by clientele who don't want to shop at Target, and Rodeo Drive stores benefit from peoples desired to not shop at Sears. I don't think it has anything to do with any prejudice, though. It has to do with making the most money possible.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 20 years, or are you just pretending not to know of people who choose to shop at Target because of their feelings toward Walmart clientele? I could post links for days on here to blogs and discussion boards about this to get you up to speed, if you want me to.


One thing that will always be stronger than prejudice is greed.

And what if they feel that their greed can be satisfied by appealing to people's prejudices?

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 08:06 PM
Apparently, you don't understand the concept of low volume/high margin vs high volume/low margin.

There are prostitutes walking the streets of Atlantic City that charge thousands of dollars for their services (I only know about this, because one guy I worked with blew over half his enlistment bonus on one), and if they only get one customer every two weeks, they're still doing better than many $100 hookers. Exactly. It has nothing to do with prejudice. It has to do with making the most money possible while serving the least amount of people.




Have you been living under a rock for the past 20 years, or are you just pretending not to know of people who choose to shop at Target because of their feelings toward Walmart clientele? I could post links for days on here to blogs and discussion boards about this to get you up to speed, if you want me to. Absolutely there are people who do this. But that's the customer, not the business. The business is going to figure out any way they can to make as much money as possible.




And what if they feel that their greed can be satisfied by appealing to people's prejudices?Again, they can appeal to people's prejudice without being prejudice themselves. As a matter of fact, I can't think of one company that doesn't appeal to people's prejudice. Hell, look at every business that markets their products as "American Made" or "Low Fat" or "Organic". This is all marketed toward people's prejudice against something. But I just can't buy into the premise that the business owner is saying "I'm going to keep poor people out of here." What they are thinking is "I'm going to find the best way to get rich people in here" or "the most customers in here".

Hell, look at AAFES. With their clothing they target dependent wives/daughters and young black men. They aren't trying to keep white men out of the store, they just know who's going to spend the most money on their products.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 08:14 PM
Exactly. It has nothing to do with prejudice. It has to do with making the most money possible while serving the least amount of people.

And why would someone spend $5,000 on a prostitute when they can get one for a $100? Because he knows that less dicks have been in the one that costs $5,000, and that the fewer dicks that HAVE been in this prostitute are "cleaner." Those are the customers that she attracts. Customers that make their decision, based on the observation of the clientele.


Absolutely there are people who do this. But that's the customer, not the business. The business is going to figure out any way they can to make as much money as possible.

Whether or not the business intends to do this is besides the point. The point is - like I said - a business is not going to fail because it discriminates. It's not punishing itself by doing so.




Again, they can appeal to people's prejudice without being prejudice themselves. As a matter of fact, I can't think of one company that doesn't appeal to people's prejudice. Hell, look at every business that markets their products as "American Made" or "Low Fat" or "Organic". This is all marketed toward people's prejudice against something. But I just can't buy into the premise that the business owner is saying "I'm going to keep poor people out of here." What they are thinking is "I'm going to find the best way to get rich people in here" or "the most customers in here".

Hell, look at AAFES. With their clothing they target dependent wives/daughters and young black men. They aren't trying to keep white men out of the store, they just know who's going to spend the most money on their products.

Yep, semantic on the word "prejudice," so I'm going to ignore this part.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 08:25 PM
And why would someone spend $5,000 on a prostitute when they can get one for a $100? Because he knows that less dicks have been in the one that costs $5,000, and that the fewer dicks that HAVE been in this prostitute are "cleaner." Those are the customers that she attracts. Customers that make their decision, based on the observation of the clientele.



Whether or not the business intends to do this is besides the point. The point is - like I said - a business is not going to fail because it discriminates. It's not punishing itself by doing so.





Yep, semantic on the word "prejudice," so I'm going to ignore this part.

The more I read this I think we're arguing the same thing...I agree that business will set up their store for the kind of clientele they want. I agree that they will try to make the most money possible. And I agree that our discussion over the word "prejudice" is nothing more than semantics, so I guess our discussion here is done.

TJMAC77SP
02-26-2014, 08:33 PM
There are prostitutes walking the streets of Atlantic City that charge thousands of dollars for their services (I only know about this, because one guy I worked with blew over half his enlistment bonus on one), and if they only get one customer every two weeks, they're still doing better than many $100 hookers.

If your buddy paid that much to a street-walker he bought the Juarez Filet Mignon ($1.85)

kool-aid
02-26-2014, 08:38 PM
I can assure you that we are all actively living in sin.

But most sinners don't proudly proclaim and make try to force you to accept thier faults.

kool-aid
02-26-2014, 08:40 PM
Or expect a Jewish Deli to sell non-kosher?

Or a restaurant in California to sell sweet tea???????????

So why isn't it technically wrong to for there to even be "Jewish" delis? Should the bakery be advertised as a "Chrisitian" bakery?

kool-aid
02-26-2014, 08:46 PM
Harris-Teeter is also the only chain grocery store in the region that does not accept EBT or WIC. That, in itself, should tell you that they're selective of their clientele. USN-Retired would LOVE Harris-Teeter, if he doesn't already.

I love going to Harris Teeter. Didn't realize that they were discriminating against the trashy people I see at Wal-Mart, but it's nice to have a place to go without the dregs of society all over the place.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 08:48 PM
So why isn't it technically wrong to for there to even be "Jewish" delis? Should the bakery be advertised as a "Chrisitian" bakery?

I'm with you, and I don't know if there are many that are called "Jewish". I think they are probably referred to as Kosher. And, it's more about the culture than the religion, as is a "Mexican" or "Chinese" restaurant. And, they don't refuse service to non-Jews, they just let you know what you're going to get when you walk in. I've no problem with that. I wouldn't expect them to serve anything else, anymore than I would expect a Christian bakery owner to serve stuff they don't want to. Neither should have to cater to anyone in particular, but they also shouldn't be able to turn anyone away.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 08:51 PM
If your buddy paid that much to a street-walker he bought the Juarez Filet Mignon ($1.85)

It's highly unlikely that a prostitue with such a high price is a street walker, but me saying "walking the streets of Atlantic City" was me ignoring that particular detail. She could have been a street walker, I don't know. All I was told was that most of his enlistment bonus went to a high price hooker.


So why isn't it technically wrong to for there to even be "Jewish" delis? Should the bakery be advertised as a "Chrisitian" bakery?

There ARE stores with "Christian" in the name.

However, in the case that you're describing here, "Jewish" implies that there are certain foods there, or the foods are prepared a certain way. "Christian" merely implies that the owners are Christian, or their business has a certain cause. Or maybe the sell religious products. Not saying that "Jewish" can't be used the same way, but I can't think of any foods or methods of food preparation that's unique to Christians.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 08:52 PM
I love going to Harris Teeter. Didn't realize that they were discriminating against the trashy people I see at Wal-Mart, but it's nice to have a place to go without the dregs of society all over the place.

And you feel that it's worth the higher prices to not be around such people, correct?

garhkal
02-26-2014, 08:52 PM
Why is it ok for there to be women only gyms?


This is imo a big part of it. Its ok to discriminate if you are doing so against the accepted crowds (christians, males, whites), but if you don't wish to serve gays (or what other group) due to religious reasons, you are being 'discriminatory'..


Unfortunately, people are always going to find a way to discriminate, especially when it comes to businesses. For instance, look at night clubs. Especially the high class ones. They discriminate on a daily basis. The people at the door decide who gets let in and who doesn't. It's based off of looks, sex, perception of wealth/class, age, etc. Should these clubs be required to let everyone in?

Personally, I can't fathom why any business owner would turn any customer away.

Then you also add in all the 'Ladies nights" where gals get in free, drink free etc, but i have yet to see a Men's night" where guys get any of those perks.



My question is this. In this hypothetical bakery, is the owner going to turn away adulterers, liars, etc? I highly doubt it. And that's where they contradiction comes in. If this was really a religious issue, the owner would be throwing a fit about serving any sinner which, in turn, means they would serve no one.

The issue i see is, Gays and lesbians are a lot more vocal in 'letting people know whom they are. So its easy for a store owner to see that person Y is sinner A (gay). Can you tell by looking at someone who is an adulterer or a lier?

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 08:54 PM
But most sinners don't proudly proclaim and make try to force you to accept thier faults.

I'm pretty sure Christians aren't supposed to judge anyone. As a matter of fact, I'm positive of this.

We are not required to accept the lifestyle, but we are expected to be tolerant of everyone.

I'd even go as far to say that, if one wanted, they could paste bible quotes in their bakery that quoted verses about homosexuality, if they chose. They have their right to freedom of speech just as anyone does. Hell, they could even offer the person the "path to forgiveness" if they chose. But, they still need to provide them with the same services as everyone else.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 08:59 PM
I'm with you, and I don't know if there are many that are called "Jewish". I think they are probably referred to as Kosher. And, it's more about the culture than the religion, as is a "Mexican" or "Chinese" restaurant. And, they don't refuse service to non-Jews, they just let you know what you're going to get when you walk in. I've no problem with that. I wouldn't expect them to serve anything else, anymore than I would expect a Christian bakery owner to serve stuff they don't want to. Neither should have to cater to anyone in particular, but they also shouldn't be able to turn anyone away.

The only exception I can make is when it comes barber shops and hair salons.

I know many non-black customers that go to black barbershops, mostly because they like the kind of fade that they can get from most black barbers. And because hair texture varies so significantly among blacks, black barbers typically have plenty of experience in all hair textures.

It may be different when going to barbershop owned and staffed by non-blacks, or with female hair stylists. If they don't know what the hell they're doing with certain types of hair, they NEED to turn people away. Or at least warn them ahead of time. I know, because I've gotten some fucked up haircuts by giving some non-black barbers the benefit of the doubt.

But that's the only situation that I can think of where I can support it.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 09:03 PM
Then you also add in all the 'Ladies nights" where gals get in free, drink free etc, but i have yet to see a Men's night" where guys get any of those perks.

Trust me, as a man, this is for YOUR benefit. I know of a country & western bar in San Antonio that did this while I was there. Ladies night exist for the purpose improving the "wang to tang" ratio.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 09:06 PM
This is imo a big part of it. Its ok to discriminate if you are doing so against the accepted crowds (christians, males, whites), but if you don't wish to serve gays (or what other group) due to religious reasons, you are being 'discriminatory'.. I hear you...and I know there's a discrepancy. I'm not saying any of it's right. Actually, I'm saying it's all wrong.




Then you also add in all the 'Ladies nights" where gals get in free, drink free etc, but i have yet to see a Men's night" where guys get any of those perks. Technically, I guess. Again, it's what's going to bring in the crowds. More ladies brings more men, and men are going to spend a lot more money than the women, in general.




The issue i see is, Gays and lesbians are a lot more vocal in 'letting people know whom they are. So its easy for a store owner to see that person Y is sinner A (gay). Can you tell by looking at someone who is an adulterer or a lier?

They are indeed more vocal. I just can't find anywhere that says we are supposed to judge them and push them away.

Here's a good quote I found at a site called crosswalk. This is a short snippet.


We need to add one more critical element to temper our approach. If we know the truth and know how to help others see it, yet we don't communicate it in a way that shows we care, we'll botch the whole thing. We need to be moved with empathy and to express that clearly. It might be difficult for us to relate to having same-sex attractions, but we've all been in tough situations and struggled with things we knew were wrong. When we're not compassionate, we come off as cold and harsh. We forget we're talking to human beings who have feelings just like us.

The combination of truth and compassion works. It's biblically consistent and cultivates healthy relationships with gays and lesbians. This is a delicate balance though. If you come on too strong with your religious views, you'll be labeled homophobic. If you get too friendly with the gay community, you'll be tagged a compromiser by someone in the church. It doesn't have to be that way. You can hold that homosexual behavior is wrong but still have a Jesus-like influence on gays and lesbians by nurturing positive relationships with them.

What does it look like to speak the truth with compassion? Three principles can help us live this out practically. One, treat homosexuals as you would anyone else. Two, don't make the gospel more difficult than it is. And three, aim to make a long-term difference, not just a short-term statement.

Treat Homosexuals as You Would Anyone Else

This may seem like obvious advice, but many Christians act differently around homosexuals. They get uneasy. Their nonverbal communication, their behavior, and the direction of their conversation all change.

When gay men and women come to church, we create new rules. I remember teaching at a church that asked a lesbian to change seats because she was sitting next to another female. That's strange. I doubt this church splits up people who gossip. It's unlikely they ask unmarried couples living together to sit in different sections. Why treat a gay person any differently?

The simple answer is, we shouldn't. We should treat homosexuals as we would any other person. Show them the same dignity, kindness, and respect you would show someone who isn't gay.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 09:07 PM
But I WILL admit that I believe that night clubs that admit women 18 and up, but require men to be 21 are bullshit. Not so much because of the "discrimination" factor, but because I'd hate to be a guy between the ages of 18-20 with a girlfriend in that same age bracket who feels the urge to party.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 09:10 PM
The only exception I can make is when it comes barber shops and hair salons.

I know many non-black customers that go to black barbershops, mostly because they like the kind of fade that they can get from most black barbers. And because hair texture varies so significantly among blacks, black barbers typically have plenty of experience in all hair textures.

It may be different when going to barbershop owned and staffed by non-blacks, or with female hair stylists. If they don't know what the hell they're doing with certain types of hair, they NEED to turn people away. Or at least warn them ahead of time. I know, because I've gotten some fucked up haircuts by giving some non-black barbers the benefit of the doubt.

But that's the only situation that I can think of where I can support it.


I've also gotten some fucked up haircuts by some non-black barbers, especially ON BASE (my own fault for giving it a try). Usually there's 1 barber on base who can do an "ethnic" haircut (as it's advertised). Usually she's Asian, and guys will wait for an hour, or make an appointment specifically with her.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 09:11 PM
But I WILL admit that I believe that night clubs that admit women 18 and up, but require men to be 21 are bullshit. Not so much because of the "discrimination" factor, but because I'd hate to be a guy between the ages of 18-20 with a girlfriend in that same age bracket who feels the urge to party.

They used to have this in Wichita Falls. The club is no longer here, but I'm sure most of the Air Force guys who came through Sheppard for Tech School remember Graham's. Ladies night...women could be 18 but guys had to be 21. Talk about asking for trouble.

Rusty Jones
02-26-2014, 09:13 PM
I've also gotten some fucked up haircuts by some non-black barbers, especially ON BASE (my own fault for giving it a try). Usually there's 1 barber on base who can do an "ethnic" haircut (as it's advertised). Usually she's Asian, and guys will wait for an hour, or make an appointment specifically with her.

Funny, because the second best haircut I've ever gotten on base was from an Asian woman at Fort Eustis.

The first best was actually from a white SH while I was on the ROSS. His wife was black, and he had mixed sons... so the experience was there.

sandsjames
02-26-2014, 09:19 PM
Funny, because the second best haircut I've ever gotten on base was from an Asian woman at Fort Eustis.

The first best was actually from a white SH while I was on the ROSS. His wife was black, and he had mixed sons... so the experience was there.

It cracks me up because there can be three fat dependepotomus barbers with no customers and the guys will just wait on the one good barber. Must make those women feel pretty shitty. Pretty good stuff.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-26-2014, 09:43 PM
There are two problems with this:

1. There is no guarantee that this will happen, regardless of how good idea it may seem; and

2. even if it DID happen, if it's in a certain area where the majority of a certain group is racist, then the "We Proudly Serve Said Minority" business won't last very long.

What immediately comes to mind is a regional grocery store in the southern mid-Atlantic area, called Harris-Teeter. They don't really carry high end products, but their prices are high (for a example - a 32 oz bottle of Powerade was over $2 the last time I went - which is even higher than the price at 7-Eleven or any other convenience store). I always wondered why, but then it hit me - EVERY Harris-Teeter that I know of is in a rich neighborhood (with the exception of the newly built one at Ward's Corner). The prices appear to be designed to keep lower income people out of the store, and attract customers who feel that it's worth paying the extra money to not be around poor people when grocery shopping.

Interesting concept, right? You probably see this everyday without even noticing it - how many people do you know who shop at Target, because they have a problem with "trashy" Walmart clientele... knowing fully well that the prices are higher at Target?

There is PLENTY of profit to be made from people's prejudices.

I would label that elitism, and there are many examples of it. Look at Whole Foods, the organic food crowd is willing to pay 5 dollars a can for wax beans that sell for 1 dollar at Giant. Same beans from the same grower and same canner, but with different labels.

Bertucci's, a fancy Itailian imported goods store, sells a can of sardines for 7 dollars, that exact same brand in Giant goes for 79 cents.

I am one of those rare people that loves sardines, and one afternoon I decided to work late, instead of going out for dinner, I thought I would just pop into Bertucci's for some instant ramen and sardines. I knew nothing about Bertucci's at the time, but since it was in the same complex as my office building, I went in there and didn't even think to check prices.

No ramen, so I opted for a can of sardines, a small block of cheese, and a sleeve of table water crackers, grand total = 26.53 dollars. This was in NW DC on New Mexico Ave, and I'm sure I could get the exact same thing in SE DC on Bennington Rd for less than 10 dollars.

PS

In 2010 that Bertucci's folded and went out of business.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 10:40 PM
As a fellow squid, I'm sure you know about Ghent. Norfolk's uptown. Harris-Teeter is on the 1300 block of Colonial Ave. However, just a few blocks north and west, there's Farm Fresh on the 700 block of West 21st street, and just a few block northwest of that, there's a Food Lion on the 2400 block of colley Ave. Granted, anything past the 2300 block of Colley Ave is no longer in Ghent, but in Park Place... Park Place has it's reputation, but in recent years, park place is attracting would-be Ghent residents, who don't have Ghent money - so it's more diverse now.

Either way, Food Lion is the cheapest of the three, and if anyone in Ghent does not feel safe going north of the tracks to that Food Lion, there's still Farm Fresh.

But Harris-Teeter still thrives. So much, in fact that about five or six years ago, they tore down their old store and built a new one. Just because.

So no, it's not a situation of taking advantage of a monopoly.

You'd be surprised. A racist business would probably thrive in segregated urban areas like Memphis and St. Louis.

The question is whether they appear to be successful with their model. Some like to go to Harris Teeter just for the self-checkouts and probably some for their membership. Also let's be frank, it's sailors as often as not that they're dealing with and many sailors only learn to budget when their bank account reaches zero, so let's assume for the moment the customers on average haven't to the person crunched the numbers on a spreadsheet for things they commonly order, figured out which has the best bang for their buck, pulled out every coupon on the books, and planned their shopping accordingly. I would imagine the price rigging is designed specifically to maximize the benefit the chain receives from their sales. Whether they are actually doing that or not is up to anyone's best guess.

As for Memphis or St. Louis I've honestly no experience with either. If ever I decide to become an entrepreur I may have to look into it because it sounds like a great opportunity. If the neighbors choose to respond with violence to such I am also a believer in the Second Amendment, and from what I recall those locales are not particularly restrictive in such regard.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 11:09 PM
The only exception I can make is when it comes barber shops and hair salons.

I know many non-black customers that go to black barbershops, mostly because they like the kind of fade that they can get from most black barbers. And because hair texture varies so significantly among blacks, black barbers typically have plenty of experience in all hair textures.

It may be different when going to barbershop owned and staffed by non-blacks, or with female hair stylists. If they don't know what the hell they're doing with certain types of hair, they NEED to turn people away. Or at least warn them ahead of time. I know, because I've gotten some fucked up haircuts by giving some non-black barbers the benefit of the doubt.

But that's the only situation that I can think of where I can support it.

It's funny that you mention that because back when I was on staff duty I would always hope to get the black fellow with the Afro when I visited the C-9 NEX barber because although, I knew it would be a long wait, it tended to be worth the wait because the man is a virtual artist compared to many of his counterparts, and I'm not exactly the type of guy who's out there rockin the extravagant weave, suffice it to say.

BENDER56
02-27-2014, 03:30 AM
Meanwhile, Governor Brewer vetoed the bill.

AJBIGJ
02-27-2014, 04:10 AM
Meanwhile, Governor Brewer vetoed the bill.

Yep, typical politician, pass it off to the courts and let them be the asshole...

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 01:10 PM
As they did in the 90s before Arizona ratified MLK day as a holiday, the NFL threatened to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona if the bill passed. This is the way things should work. States can make their laws if they choose. Business can pull out if they choose. People in charge will put money over politics most of the time.

Kicker47
02-27-2014, 04:59 PM
I find it hiliarious that a bill that would have allowed a business to deny a service due to their beliefs was vetoed because a business (NFL) theatend to deny a service (Super Bowl) due to their beliefs.

Rusty Jones
02-27-2014, 05:53 PM
As they did in the 90s before Arizona ratified MLK day as a holiday, the NFL threatened to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona if the bill passed. This is the way things should work. States can make their laws if they choose. Business can pull out if they choose. People in charge will put money over politics most of the time.

I have to disagree with this. What this shows you is that government is like matter and energy - it can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be transferred from one source to the next.

In this case here, the NFL acted as the government in Arizona. And because the NFL is not a government entity (in the legit sense of the word), it is not "of, by, and for" the people. We can't vote for executives and managers who run the NFL. The NFL is not subject to the will of the people, like the legit government is.

People who advocate for "smaller" government - and least the middle class and below - don't understand this. Big business wants you to believe that smaller government is a good thing, because smaller government increases their power. In other words, power goes from an entity that is subject to the will of the people, to an entity that is not.

I, personally, have dissenting views from the rest of the black community on MLK; so I really have no "personal" feelings one way or the other on the specific incident. But I'm just saying... no entity that's not subject to the will of the people should be wielding that kind of power.

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 06:17 PM
I find it hiliarious that a bill that would have allowed a business to deny a service due to their beliefs was vetoed because a business (NFL) theatend to deny a service (Super Bowl) due to their beliefs.

You think a business should be allowed to deny service based on "beliefs". I'm sure the first time you tried to eat at a Muslim restaurant and were turned away because you're an infidel you'd change your tune.

The NFL doing this is exactly what's supposed to happen in a free market society. It's no different than advertisers pulling away from someone like Miley Cyrus because some may find her act offensive. It's what advertisers do, it's what businesses do. And what else would you expect the NFL to do? They are encouraging players to come out of the closet and be accepted. Can you imagine if an openly gay player was turned away from a business during the Superbowl? The league is protecting it's players.

Again, it's all about the money.

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 06:20 PM
I have to disagree with this. What this shows you is that government is like matter and energy - it can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be transferred from one source to the next.

In this case here, the NFL acted as the government in Arizona. And because the NFL is not a government entity (in the legit sense of the word), it is not "of, by, and for" the people. We can't vote for executives and managers who run the NFL. The NFL is not subject to the will of the people, like the legit government is.

People who advocate for "smaller" government - and least the middle class and below - don't understand this. Big business wants you to believe that smaller government is a good thing, because smaller government increases their power. In other words, power goes from an entity that is subject to the will of the people, to an entity that is not.

I, personally, have dissenting views from the rest of the black community on MLK; so I really have no "personal" feelings one way or the other on the specific incident. But I'm just saying... no entity that's not subject to the will of the people should be wielding that kind of power.

I see it no different than advertisers dropping people like Miley Cyrus. It's about image. The NFL is currently attempting to show "support" for openly gay players. How can they justify creating so much revenue for a state that is trying to discriminate. Again, the state doesn't have to comply. It will just show what's more important to the politicians. The money or the principal? I'm pretty sure I know which one will win out.

Kicker47
02-27-2014, 06:43 PM
You think a business should be allowed to deny service based on "beliefs". I'm sure the first time you tried to eat at a Muslim restaurant and were turned away because you're an infidel you'd change your tune.



I didn't say I agree with it, I just find the irony in the situation humorous.

The way I see it, the whole system is broken. Can a jewish deli owner refuse to cater a meeting that is part of a Bacon Festival? Can an anti-gun advocate decline to make t-shirts for an NRA event? Can a gay photographer refuse to photograph a Westboro Baptist Church wedding? I think the courts are going to see some crazy stuff in the next few years...

Rusty Jones
02-27-2014, 06:44 PM
I see it no different than advertisers dropping people like Miley Cyrus. It's about image. The NFL is currently attempting to show "support" for openly gay players. How can they justify creating so much revenue for a state that is trying to discriminate. Again, the state doesn't have to comply. It will just show what's more important to the politicians. The money or the principal? I'm pretty sure I know which one will win out.

Do I agree with the NFL's stance on the gay player? Of course... but whether or no I agree is something that I have to put aside, because supporting the NFL's use of power in influencing legislature means that I can't say a damn thing when they influence the passing of a law that I DISAGREE with.

Like I said before, government isn't going anyway. You can't shrink the government. All you can do is transfer governmental powers. The last thing we need is an organization whose own best interest - not the people's - at heart. We were lucky in the case of the NFL in Arizona. But we're not going to be every time.

I think that the most common story you're hearing about on the micro-level are private prisons. These private prisons are paying police departments, judges, jurors, and attorneys increase the number of arrests and convictions in order to fill their jail cells so they can get paid more money. Many people - mostly judges and police chiefs - are now locked up for accepting these bribes (though I never hear of anything happening to those who PAID the bribes), and these are just the ones who got caught. Imagine how many more there are out there.

Whereas, if the government owned and ran all the prisons like they're supposed to, this would be a non-issue.

Rusty Jones
02-27-2014, 06:57 PM
I didn't say I agree with it, I just find the irony in the situation humorous.

The way I see it, the whole system is broken. Can a jewish deli owner refuse to cater a meeting that is part of a Bacon Festival? Can an anti-gun advocate decline to make t-shirts for an NRA event? Can a gay photographer refuse to photograph a Westboro Baptist Church wedding? I think the courts are going to see some crazy stuff in the next few years...

I don't think these are good examples. Would the WBC even hire a gay photographer in the first place? If I ran a bacon festival, why would I hire a Jewish catering service? Maybe if I wanted to have matzo balls on the side, but I highly doubt that fatasses going to a bacon fest are going to give two shits about matzo balls.

Concerning the anti-gun vs NRA example, that would technically be legal since "stance on gun control" is not a protected class.

But to entertain the other two examples, they would also be legal because they're not discriminating against someone based on a protected class; though the Jewish deli would be stupid to refuse to provide services to a bacon festival as long as having to eat the bacon is not a condition of providing the service.

The gay photographer can refuse to provide the service, because the WBC is hostile toward him; and that will easily hold up in court if the WBC tried to say it was because of their religion.

Rusty Jones
02-27-2014, 07:07 PM
Of note, I do remember when I was getting a tattoo in San Antonio; and one of the tattoo artists was talking about how, every now and then, they'll get a customer who wants a tattoo of a swastika or things of similar nature, and they turn them away all the time.

garhkal
02-27-2014, 07:49 PM
I find it hiliarious that a bill that would have allowed a business to deny a service due to their beliefs was vetoed because a business (NFL) theatend to deny a service (Super Bowl) due to their beliefs.

Not just ironic, but hypocritical.

TJMAC77SP
02-27-2014, 07:56 PM
It's highly unlikely that a prostitue with such a high price is a street walker, but me saying "walking the streets of Atlantic City" was me ignoring that particular detail. She could have been a street walker, I don't know. All I was told was that most of his enlistment bonus went to a high price hooker.

But her being a street walker seemed crucial to your argument so it is a relevant point .....................the devil is in the details.

Rusty Jones
02-27-2014, 07:58 PM
Not just ironic, but hypocritical.

Hypocritical on who's part? I think that the smaller businesses in Arizona actually got a dose of their own medicine with that. Not that that's the way I wanted it to get shut down, but I still find it humorous that they lost at their own game.

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 08:02 PM
I didn't say I agree with it, I just find the irony in the situation humorous.

The way I see it, the whole system is broken. Can a jewish deli owner refuse to cater a meeting that is part of a Bacon Festival? Can an anti-gun advocate decline to make t-shirts for an NRA event? Can a gay photographer refuse to photograph a Westboro Baptist Church wedding? I think the courts are going to see some crazy stuff in the next few years...

They could if this law were to pass. Absolutely.

TJMAC77SP
02-27-2014, 08:03 PM
.......................Harris-Teeter is also the only chain grocery store in the region that does not accept EBT or WIC. .........................

Since when (http://www.vahealth.org/dcn/Publications/Files/PDFs/2009%20Foodlist_web.pdf) ?

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 08:07 PM
Since when (http://www.vahealth.org/dcn/Publications/Files/PDFs/2009%20Foodlist_web.pdf) ?

Doh!

TJMAC77SP
02-27-2014, 08:07 PM
Of note, I do remember when I was getting a tattoo in San Antonio; and one of the tattoo artists was talking about how, every now and then, they'll get a customer who wants a tattoo of a swastika or things of similar nature, and they turn them away all the time.

Why would they do that?

Do they agree with those things and therefore don't want to remove them?

Do they not agree with those things? In which case why wouldn't they want to remove them?

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 08:12 PM
Why would they do that?

Do they agree with those things and therefore don't want to remove them?

Do they not agree with those things? In which case why wouldn't they want to remove them?

???? He didn't say they were asking about removing them.

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 08:14 PM
Do I agree with the NFL's stance on the gay player? Of course... but whether or no I agree is something that I have to put aside, because supporting the NFL's use of power in influencing legislature means that I can't say a damn thing when they influence the passing of a law that I DISAGREE with.

Like I said before, government isn't going anyway. You can't shrink the government. All you can do is transfer governmental powers. The last thing we need is an organization whose own best interest - not the people's - at heart. We were lucky in the case of the NFL in Arizona. But we're not going to be every time.

I think that the most common story you're hearing about on the micro-level are private prisons. These private prisons are paying police departments, judges, jurors, and attorneys increase the number of arrests and convictions in order to fill their jail cells so they can get paid more money. Many people - mostly judges and police chiefs - are now locked up for accepting these bribes (though I never hear of anything happening to those who PAID the bribes), and these are just the ones who got caught. Imagine how many more there are out there.

Whereas, if the government owned and ran all the prisons like they're supposed to, this would be a non-issue.

The State doesn't have to bow to the NFL...that's the difference. The NFL is legislating nothing. They are just a business who said "we won't do business here". If the state was really more concerned about the legislation than they were about the revenue then it wouldn't be an issue.

Rusty Jones
02-27-2014, 08:39 PM
Since when (http://www.vahealth.org/dcn/Publications/Files/PDFs/2009%20Foodlist_web.pdf) ?

That list only says what WIC will pay for, not who accepts WIC. It's entirely possible that each store makes it's own call, though I don't see why that would be the case. Either way, I do know that the last time I was there - some time in the Spring of 2012, they weren't taking WIC or food stamps. At least not the one Colonial Ave in Norfolk.


Why would they do that?

Do they agree with those things and therefore don't want to remove them?

Do they not agree with those things? In which case why wouldn't they want to remove them?

If I had the contact information for this tattoo parlor, I'd give you the phone number so you can ask them yourself. But I said nothing of removing tattoos.


The State doesn't have to bow to the NFL...that's the difference. The NFL is legislating nothing. They are just a business who said "we won't do business here". If the state was really more concerned about the legislation than they were about the revenue then it wouldn't be an issue.

In other words, the government - or the power thereof - can be bought. What's happening is that big business is a "power behind the throne," with the legitimate government acting as the figurehead.

Rusty Jones
02-27-2014, 08:50 PM
I'd hate to see what would happen if a member of the Westboro Baptist Church won the Mega Millions. Because a LOT of people in one part of the country or another would be fucked. And you'd have no problem with this.

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 09:05 PM
I'd hate to see what would happen if a member of the Westboro Baptist Church won the Mega Millions. Because a LOT of people in one part of the country or another would be fucked. And you'd have no problem with this.

I don't get it.

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 09:06 PM
In other words, the government - or the power thereof - can be bought. What's happening is that big business is a "power behind the throne," with the legitimate government acting as the figurehead. Of course the government can be bought. Everything the government does is based off of the lobby that pays the most money.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should. As messed up as the Arizona law is, if they really believed in it, they wouldn't bow to the pressure.

Rusty Jones
02-27-2014, 09:16 PM
I don't get it.

You said it yourself: the government can be bought. If lottery jackpots these days are half a billion dollars, what do think a member of the WBC can do with that kind of money?

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 09:52 PM
You said it yourself: the government can be bought. If lottery jackpots these days are half a billion dollars, what do think a member of the WBC can do with that kind of money?

I have no idea what they would do. And I don't understand where your going with it. I'm not saying the government should be able to be bought. I'm not endorsing it. I'm not ok with it. It's just a fact. I can't say what WBC or any other organization would do. I'm not sure how it's pertinent to the conversation except for you trying to take what became a fairly civil thread and turning it back into an argument about what you think people believe.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-27-2014, 10:31 PM
What if Dan Snyder wanted to change the name of the Washington Redskins to the Washington Pale Faces because the Westboro Baptist Church won the lottery and bought Fedex Field and changed the name to Got Hates Fags Stadium?

TJMAC77SP
02-27-2014, 10:38 PM
That list only says what WIC will pay for, not who accepts WIC. It's entirely possible that each store makes it's own call, though I don't see why that would be the case. Either way, I do know that the last time I was there - some time in the Spring of 2012, they weren't taking WIC or food stamps. At least not the one Colonial Ave in Norfolk.



If I had the contact information for this tattoo parlor, I'd give you the phone number so you can ask them yourself. But I said nothing of removing tattoos.


Actually the brochure lists which chains accept WIC and EBT. BTW, the store you cited does accept both.

As for the tattoo parlor, I misread your post. I apologize.

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 10:53 PM
What if Dan Snyder wanted to change the name of the Washington Redskins to the Washington Pale Faces because the Westboro Baptist Church won the lottery and bought Fedex Field and changed the name to Got Hates Fags Stadium?

I'm really confused here. Again, I'm not condoning anything. I'm merely stating what happens and what people/businesses can do.

Just as you can boycott any business you choose to, businesses can do, in a sense, the same thing.

I'm not going any further into this argument because, from reading the posts, I think we agree on the major point of this. I refuse to fall into another "gotcha" scenario with you or Rusty. We can "what if" all day. What if a frog had wings? Would he still bump his ass when he hopped?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-27-2014, 11:16 PM
I'm really confused here. Again, I'm not condoning anything. I'm merely stating what happens and what people/businesses can do.

Just as you can boycott any business you choose to, businesses can do, in a sense, the same thing.

I'm not going any further into this argument because, from reading the posts, I think we agree on the major point of this. I refuse to fall into another "gotcha" scenario with you or Rusty. We can "what if" all day. What if a frog had wings? Would he still bump his ass when he hopped?

I'm just making fun of all the hypotheticals.

However, I really do wonder how people would react if Synder changed the name to the Pale Faces.

Frankly, I would like a team named the White Devils and the mascot could be a briefcase toting lawyer.

The Forked Tongues would be another cool name.

sandsjames
02-27-2014, 11:35 PM
I'm just making fun of all the hypotheticals.

However, I really do wonder how people would react if Synder changed the name to the Pale Faces.

Frankly, I would like a team named the White Devils and the mascot could be a briefcase toting lawyer.

The Forked Tongues would be another cool name.

Great...good to know...still not sure how it's relevant to the thread.

Since this thread has now been crossed with the NFL thread, might as well just keep it here.

What I find funny is that I show support for a company showing support for homosexuals and I catch flack from you. If I had said "The NFL is wrong and should stay out of it" I would have caught flack for being anti-gay. It's the typical liberal move, proven with an experiment I did when Joe Bonham was still around. I starting taking my view from what would typically be considered the "liberal" view and he would find a way to argue it. It was fun for awhile. I guess the only values liberals support are those that disagree with a conservative, even if that conservative is supporting a liberal idea.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 01:37 AM
I'm pretty sure Christians aren't supposed to judge anyone. As a matter of fact, I'm positive of this.



No, wrong. Christians are very much supposed to judge their Christian brothers and sisters of the sins they commit, especially the ones they flaunt. Christians aren't supposed to judge people on their worthiness of getting into heaven. Its a difference. We aren't supposed to stand back and let and alcoholic continue to wreck their lives because they chose to stay on the sauce. But we don't tell them they aren't going to heaven if they don't stop drinking.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 01:37 AM
As for entire geographic regions that are primarily racist/bigoted, I'm not sure if they exists anymore outside of some swamp town in Mississippi, our culture has changed quite a bit in this regard, even in the last couple of decades.
Now, pulling the MS racist card as the only place you can think of as being a geographic region as racist/bigoted is pretty sad. There are plenty in LA, Chicago, SF, NYC, Detroit, DC, and many liberal big city areas. It doesn't always have to be just a very secluded section of the backwoods southern hicks neighborhoods. I know you're better than that.


I'm pretty sure Christians aren't supposed to judge anyone. As a matter of fact, I'm positive of this.



No, wrong. Christians are very much supposed to judge their Christian brothers and sisters of the sins they commit, especially the ones they flaunt. Christians aren't supposed to judge people on their worthiness of getting into heaven. Its a difference. We aren't supposed to stand back and let and alcoholic continue to wreck their lives because they chose to stay on the sauce. But we don't tell them they aren't going to heaven if they don't stop drinking.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 01:54 AM
I have to disagree with this. What this shows you is that government is like matter and energy - it can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be transferred from one source to the next.

In this case here, the NFL acted as the government in Arizona. And because the NFL is not a government entity (in the legit sense of the word), it is not "of, by, and for" the people. We can't vote for executives and managers who run the NFL. The NFL is not subject to the will of the people, like the legit government is.Actually, it kind of is. Its a non-profit organization given that title from the government that was willing to discriminate against a state for its small government policies that had nothing to do with Christianity or homosexuals as being explicitly targeted groups to benefit or be oppressed under this law.


People who advocate for "smaller" government - and least the middle class and below - don't understand this. Big business wants you to believe that smaller government is a good thing, because smaller government increases their power. In other words, power goes from an entity that is subject to the will of the people, to an entity that is not.Actually, quite the opposite happened here. The NFL told AZ that they would not stand for AZ to allow individuals to have the right to make business policies for themselves. The NFL said the only ruler of who make policies is the federal government, not the state or local government. I wonder if a non-profit organization should be able to make such threats like that? I know the TEA party non-profits were punished with audits from the IRS for their political affiliations. Lets see if it happens to the billion dollar enterprise of the "non-profit" NFL?


I, personally, have dissenting views from the rest of the black community on MLK; so I really have no "personal" feelings one way or the other on the specific incident. But I'm just saying... no entity that's not subject to the will of the people should be wielding that kind of power.Does your dissenting views on MLK come from the fact that he wasn't a race baiter? He was actually a true minister? That he was Republican and had absolutely no interest in socialism?

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 01:57 AM
No, wrong. Christians are very much supposed to judge their Christian brothers and sisters of the sins they commit, especially the ones they flaunt. Christians aren't supposed to judge people on their worthiness of getting into heaven. Its a difference. We aren't supposed to stand back and let and alcoholic continue to wreck their lives because they chose to stay on the sauce. But we don't tell them they aren't going to heaven if they don't stop drinking.

Exactly my point. We are all sinners, so to determine whether someone is worth our time or not is not up to us. No matter what sin, we are supposed to love. We are also supposed to educate, by example. If we refuse to serve someone because they are gay, we are saying that, even though they may still be worthy of entrance into heaven, they aren't worthy of our time or compassion. Basically we might as well be saying our determination of the person is more important than God's. That is judging.

edit: You are entitled to you beliefs. All I know is that when it comes to my judgment I don't want God to say "You were unwilling to allow a sinner into your store...why should I be willing to allow you into my kingdom?"

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 01:59 AM
I have to disagree with this. What this shows you is that government is like matter and energy - it can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be transferred from one source to the next.

In this case here, the NFL acted as the government in Arizona. And because the NFL is not a government entity (in the legit sense of the word), it is not "of, by, and for" the people. We can't vote for executives and managers who run the NFL. The NFL is not subject to the will of the people, like the legit government is.Actually, it kind of is. Its a non-profit organization given that title from the government that was willing to discriminate against a state for its small government policies that had nothing to do with Christianity or homosexuals as being explicitly targeted groups to benefit or be oppressed under this law.


People who advocate for "smaller" government - and least the middle class and below - don't understand this. Big business wants you to believe that smaller government is a good thing, because smaller government increases their power. In other words, power goes from an entity that is subject to the will of the people, to an entity that is not.Actually, quite the opposite happened here. The NFL told AZ that they would not stand for AZ to allow individuals to have the right to make business policies for themselves. The NFL said the only ruler of who make policies is the federal government, not the state or local government. I wonder if a non-profit organization should be able to make such threats like that? I know the TEA party non-profits were punished with audits from the IRS for their political affiliations. Lets see if it happens to the billion dollar enterprise of the "non-profit" NFL?


I, personally, have dissenting views from the rest of the black community on MLK; so I really have no "personal" feelings one way or the other on the specific incident. But I'm just saying... no entity that's not subject to the will of the people should be wielding that kind of power.Does your dissenting views on MLK come from the fact that he wasn't a race baiter? He was actually a true minister? That he was Republican and had absolutely no interest in socialism?


You think a business should be allowed to deny service based on "beliefs". I'm sure the first time you tried to eat at a Muslim restaurant and were turned away because you're an infidel you'd change your tune.By all means, if they chose to deny me their goods, I will go some where else. I don't want the back woods terrorist getting my money to make their home made bombs.


The NFL doing this is exactly what's supposed to happen in a free market society. It's no different than advertisers pulling away from someone like Miley Cyrus because some may find her act offensive. It's what advertisers do, it's what businesses do. And what else would you expect the NFL to do? They are encouraging players to come out of the closet and be accepted. Can you imagine if an openly gay player was turned away from a business during the Superbowl? The league is protecting it's players.The NFL is a "non-profit" charity because they are in collusion with the federal government. Don't be fooled into thinking this is the free market at work, the NFL is crony capitalism at its finest, right behind GE.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 02:11 AM
Hypocritical on who's part? I think that the smaller businesses in Arizona actually got a dose of their own medicine with that. Not that that's the way I wanted it to get shut down, but I still find it humorous that they lost at their own game.

The first people to embrace the law was businesses that wanted to refuse service to the law makers. This had nothing to do with any out cry of small businesses wanting to shut down service to gays, but to make sure the loop wholes of the religious freedom act that Bill Clinton was touted as a hero for passing, were closed up to protect the businesses from over zealous courts who legislate from the bench.

In other words, the government - or the power thereof - can be bought. What's happening is that big business is a "power behind the throne," with the legitimate government acting as the figurehead.You do realize that is how the federal government works too right? Its actually worse because the federal government takes money from the state before it says what the state must do to "earn" some of their money back. No one but the government can force you to buy anything. I am not forced to buy anything in the NFL. MLB was going down the tubes because people were sick a tired of the strikes until Mark and Sammi started the home run race in 97'. The federal government however can force you to buy something or fine/tax you if you don't have said product that you don't want or need.

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 02:11 AM
Actually, quite the opposite happened here. The NFL told AZ that they would not stand for AZ to allow individuals to have the right to make business policies for themselves. The NFL said the only ruler of who make policies is the federal government, not the state or local government. I wonder if a non-profit organization should be able to make such threats like that? I know the TEA party non-profits were punished with audits from the IRS for their political affiliations. Lets see if it happens to the billion dollar enterprise of the "non-profit" NFL? It's not even close to the same thing. The NFL didn't say anything about the Federal Government vs State Government. What they said is "We refuse to give you the reward of Superbowl revenue if you are going to openly discriminate against people we employ."

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 02:14 AM
You said it yourself: the government can be bought. If lottery jackpots these days are half a billion dollars, what do think a member of the WBC can do with that kind of money?

Be only half as strong as Unions and other liberal based organizations that donate to political funds? Not to mention, the WBC member wouldn't be getting that kind of money yearly and most political donors do, so I doubt they would have very little influence at all.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 02:21 AM
You said it yourself: the government can be bought. If lottery jackpots these days are half a billion dollars, what do think a member of the WBC can do with that kind of money?

Be only half as strong as Unions and other liberal based organizations that donate to political funds? Not to mention, the WBC member wouldn't be getting that kind of money yearly and most political donors do, so I doubt they would have very little influence at all.
It's not even close to the same thing. The NFL didn't say anything about the Federal Government vs State Government. What they said is "We refuse to give you the reward of Superbowl revenue if you are going to openly discriminate against people we employ."

Hasn't the NFL been played in the US for decades now? They never said anything about the DOMA or DADT issues. Now all of the sudden they are speaking out against AZ and a law that was never about targeting one specific group of people. I find their selective hypocrisy quite obvious. The NFL has no problems talking about banning the super bowl in AZ over the MEDIAs view of this law, but they have no problem holding the super bowl in the south with the relaxed gun laws of the south when they don't allow any player to travel with a personal fire arm.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 02:23 AM
It's not even close to the same thing. The NFL didn't say anything about the Federal Government vs State Government. What they said is "We refuse to give you the reward of Superbowl revenue if you are going to openly discriminate against people we employ."

Yep, now Christians are the ones being forced to do something, and we know the NFL doesn't like out spoken Christians.

garhkal
02-28-2014, 02:25 AM
Hypocritical on who's part? I think that the smaller businesses in Arizona actually got a dose of their own medicine with that. Not that that's the way I wanted it to get shut down, but I still find it humorous that they lost at their own game.

That a bill, meant to protect people's rights to refuse service based on religious reasons, was shot down, by Other organizations putting pressure on by doing what the bill would have done, threaten to deny service (in this case No hosting of the superbowl).


It's not even close to the same thing. The NFL didn't say anything about the Federal Government vs State Government. What they said is "We refuse to give you the reward of Superbowl revenue if you are going to openly discriminate against people we employ."

Which is Why i say its hypocritical. Basically they are using the logic OF that bill, to defeat that bill.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 02:29 AM
Yep, go ahead pat yourself on the back and claim victory when someone decides that your ignorance isn't worth addressing. Yep, keep patting that back of yours.

See, when you are presented with facts, you either refute them with more facts or you bow out of the discussion. You turning it into an argument with just name calling is when I know you lost the argument.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 02:37 AM
That a bill, meant to protect people's rights to refuse service based on religious reasons, was shot down, by Other organizations putting pressure on by doing what the bill would have done, threaten to deny service (in this case No hosting of the superbowl).

Which is Why i say its hypocritical. Basically they are using the logic OF that bill, to defeat that bill.
But whites or christians or males are not the protected class any more. When they were, it was wrong. Now that they are the only ones that aren't, its perfectly fine. What people fail to realize is that white christian males are actually a minority in the US, so it really is the power of the mob rule that we are seeing as the reason for the oppression. The difference between now and then, white christian males tend to work hard even when semi oppressed and still make it look like everyone else is still being oppressed. Its kind of sad actually that when the white males go for college entrance exams, they start off with a disadvantage of not getting extra points, and still typically test better than most other of their counter parts. But anyways, I digress. The CRA made it so that perceived minorities have more rights than actual minorities and thus oppression still happens in this nation, not as Jim Crow laws, but lets call them Larry Johnson laws.

garhkal
02-28-2014, 06:09 AM
Exactly.. it's why i say its ok to discriminate against whites or males.. we are the only ones not protected.

Rusty Jones
02-28-2014, 12:14 PM
Actually the brochure lists which chains accept WIC and EBT. BTW, the store you cited does accept both.

As for the tattoo parlor, I misread your post. I apologize.

You also misread that brochure. Harris Teeter is listed under the store brand items that WIC will pay for. The brochure says nothing of who actually accepts WIC. The brochure is also a WIC brochure that says nothing of EBT.

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 01:49 PM
Yep, now Christians are the ones being forced to do something, and we know the NFL doesn't like out spoken Christians.

You mean like every player who thanks God during every interview?

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 01:54 PM
Which is Why i say its hypocritical. Basically they are using the logic OF that bill, to defeat that bill.

It's two separate things. In the case of the "bakery", the people are coming to the established business. The NFL is not threatening to cancel all NFL games in Arizona. They are not threatening to move the Arizona Cardinals.

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 01:55 PM
Sad that this thread turned out to be about race...

Rusty Jones
02-28-2014, 02:09 PM
Sad that this thread turned out to be about race...

Yep. And not by the hand of any liberal. I'd love to hear from any white male getting all "woe is me" which race/gender combo he'd love to trade places with, and how his life would be so much better because of that trade.

socal1200r
02-28-2014, 02:10 PM
So instead of Gov Brewer standing tall against the LGBT mafia, she caves in to the politically-correct crowd and the dollar signs of the NFL. What a prime example of a true politician...

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 02:16 PM
Yep. And not by the hand of any liberal. I'd love to hear from any white male getting all "woe is me" which race/gender combo he'd love to trade places with, and how his life would be so much better because of that trade.

Keep trying Rusty. Not getting into this. Not what this thread is about. You and joker can keep trying to take it there, though.

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 02:17 PM
So instead of Gov Brewer standing tall against the LGBT mafia, she caves in to the politically-correct crowd and the dollar signs of the NFL. What a prime example of a true politician...

That's the point I am making. That the politicians don't care about the politics. They care about lining their pockets. If they really believed in the law they would have held their ground.

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2014, 03:17 PM
I would label that elitism, and there are many examples of it. Look at Whole Foods, the organic food crowd is willing to pay 5 dollars a can for wax beans that sell for 1 dollar at Giant. Same beans from the same grower and same canner, but with different labels.

Bertucci's, a fancy Itailian imported goods store, sells a can of sardines for 7 dollars, that exact same brand in Giant goes for 79 cents.

I am one of those rare people that loves sardines, and one afternoon I decided to work late, instead of going out for dinner, I thought I would just pop into Bertucci's for some instant ramen and sardines. I knew nothing about Bertucci's at the time, but since it was in the same complex as my office building, I went in there and didn't even think to check prices.

No ramen, so I opted for a can of sardines, a small block of cheese, and a sleeve of table water crackers, grand total = 26.53 dollars. This was in NW DC on New Mexico Ave, and I'm sure I could get the exact same thing in SE DC on Bennington Rd for less than 10 dollars.

PS

In 2010 that Bertucci's folded and went out of business.

It was a grocery or restaurant?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-28-2014, 03:23 PM
It was a grocery or restaurant?

A grocery/market that specialized in imported Italian goods.

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2014, 03:24 PM
You also misread that brochure. Harris Teeter is listed under the store brand items that WIC will pay for. The brochure says nothing of who actually accepts WIC. The brochure is also a WIC brochure that says nothing of EBT.

Noooooooooooooo, I didn't misread anything.

Where besides Harris Teeter can you buy HT Traders (store brand)?

I didn't mention EBT because since you said..."Harris-Teeter is also the only chain grocery store in the region that does not accept EBT or WIC" I figured providing one example of where you are wrong would suffice but if it helps there is this.

On line conversation with HT: (bold added by me). Feel free to call the store at (757) 533-9284


User:

Does your store on colonial avenue in norfolk, VA accept WIC and EBT


Agent:



Harris Teeter accepts the following payment types for grocery purchases:

Cash
Check (with acceptable ID)
VISA
Mastercard
Discover
American Express
Debit Cards
EBT
WIC
Harris Teeter Gift Cards
Traveler's Cheques (with acceptable ID)

BTW: With regard to your anecdote about the tattoo parlor in San Antonio, what was you point? I seem to have missed that. Were you getting inked? What was the name of the shop?

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2014, 03:34 PM
A grocery/market that specialized in imported Italian goods.

Maybe Balducci's................not Bertucci's.

I wonder if the new store there (Wagshal’s) has cheaper sardines.

Rusty Jones
02-28-2014, 03:51 PM
Keep trying Rusty. Not getting into this. Not what this thread is about. You and joker can keep trying to take it there, though.

I agree. But what I'm saying is that I didn't make it about that. What's ironic is that a very member of the specific age/race demographic that accuses others outside of that demographic of doing it all the time... has done it himself. My intent was to simply add my two cents and be done with it. Not to continue the discussion on it.


Noooooooooooooo, I didn't misread anything.

Where besides Harris Teeter can you buy HT Traders (store brand)?

I didn't mention EBT because since you said..."Harris-Teeter is also the only chain grocery store in the region that does not accept EBT or WIC" I figured providing one example of where you are wrong would suffice but if it helps there is this.

On line conversation with HT: (bold added by me). Feel free to call the store at (757) 533-9284


User:

Does your store on colonial avenue in norfolk, VA accept WIC and EBT


Agent:



Harris Teeter accepts the following payment types for grocery purchases:

Cash
Check (with acceptable ID)
VISA
Mastercard
Discover
American Express
Debit Cards
EBT
WIC
Harris Teeter Gift Cards
Traveler's Cheques (with acceptable ID)


Maybe Balducci's................not Bertucci's.

Huh? Pullinteeth? Is that you?


BTW: With regard to your anecdote about the tattoo parlor in San Antonio, what was you point? I seem to have missed that. Were you getting inked? What was the name of the shop?

I was getting inked there, where I got tattoo of my daughter's name and birthdate in Latin and Roman numerals tattood on my right arm. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name if the shop - I'd give it to you if I had it.

The point of that story was in response to someone giving examples of refusals to do certain services based on beliefs, and comparing it to discriminating against homosexuals. Although sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level, it is at many state and local levels. Holding hate or supremacist ideologies? Not a protected class. Therefore, a tattoo artist can refuse to do a tattoo of a swastika, and without any reasonable fear of legal ramifications.

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2014, 03:56 PM
Huh? Pullinteeth? Is that you?

Did I say something wrong?



I was getting inked there, where I got tattoo of my daughter's name and birthdate in Latin and Roman numerals tattood on my right arm. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name if the shop - I'd give it to you if I had it.

The point of that story was in response to someone giving examples of refusals to do certain services based on beliefs, and comparing it to discriminating against homosexuals. Although sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level, it is at many state and local levels. Holding hate or supremacist ideologies? Not a protected class. Therefore, a tattoo artist can refuse to do a tattoo of a swastika, and without any reasonable fear of legal ramifications.

Got it. I don't have any ink but everyone I know can tell me exactly where they got every drop of ink on their body. Unimportant I guess.

BTW............That's it? Seems to be something missing.

Rusty Jones
02-28-2014, 04:26 PM
Did I say something wrong?

No. But up until now, no one know has gone further out of the way than he has over a message board discussion.


Got it. I don't have any ink but everyone I know can tell me exactly where they got every drop of ink on their body. Unimportant I guess.

I've only got three tattoos. I'm not a hobbyist. All three tattoos were from walk-ins to places that I'd never heard of or seen prior.


BTW............That's it? Seems to be something missing.

Yes, that's it. Someone, I can't remember who, asked if it was legal for a Jewish Deli to refuse to provided catering service to a Bacon Festival, or a gay photographer to refuse service at a Westboro Baptist Church wedding; things like that. That's what I brought up my example as a response to.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-28-2014, 04:29 PM
Maybe Balducci's................not Bertucci's.

I wonder if the new store there (Wagshal’s) has cheaper sardines.

A quick internet search confirms that it was Balducci's.

You are familiar with that New Mexico Ave location?

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2014, 05:19 PM
A quick internet search confirms that it was Balducci's.

You are familiar with that New Mexico Ave location?

No, but I am familiar with the Bertucci's restaurant chain.

That and Google is my friend.

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2014, 05:23 PM
No. But up until now, no one know has gone further out of the way than he has over a message board discussion.

Well, when wrong information is given in an anecdote it seems confusing. I question....kinda like throwing the bullshit flag. You are a fan of that if I remember correctly.




Yes, that's it. Someone, I can't remember who, asked if it was legal for a Jewish Deli to refuse to provided catering service to a Bacon Festival, or a gay photographer to refuse service at a Westboro Baptist Church wedding; things like that. That's what I brought up my example as a response to.

Actually what I meant (which you realize) is that MY post refuted your assertion regarding Harris Teeter. You seemed to neglect to answer that.

Take a page from my book........................'I misspoke, my mistake'.....................it's not hard.

PburghNo1
02-28-2014, 05:35 PM
But whites or christians or males are not the protected class any more. When they were, it was wrong. Now that they are the only ones that aren't, its perfectly fine. What people fail to realize is that white christian males are actually a minority in the US, so it really is the power of the mob rule that we are seeing as the reason for the oppression. The difference between now and then, white christian males tend to work hard even when semi oppressed and still make it look like everyone else is still being oppressed. Its kind of sad actually that when the white males go for college entrance exams, they start off with a disadvantage of not getting extra points, and still typically test better than most other of their counter parts. But anyways, I digress. The CRA made it so that perceived minorities have more rights than actual minorities and thus oppression still happens in this nation, not as Jim Crow laws, but lets call them Larry Johnson laws.

At the risk of jumping in a little too late...I think you're making a few assumptions here that need to be challenged. First, "White christian males tend to work harder"? Seriously? Do you have empirical proof outside of your own pre-concieved notions? Or do you just believe that they MUST work harder than anyone else because that's the group YOU belong to?

Also, where is your data saying white Christian males are a minority? I'm sure I could twist the statistics and make that true by saying only white baptist males or only white episcopalian males, but that wouldn't be honest because it doesn't include all Christians, now does it? That said, what do you consider Christian? Catholic? Presbyterian? Methodist? Baptist? You can't make sweeping statements like that without backing or context...or maybe you can in your echo chamber where you believe you're persecuted because you're white and "Christian". Give me a break...

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 06:39 PM
At the risk of jumping in a little too late...I think you're making a few assumptions here that need to be challenged. First, "White christian males tend to work harder"? Seriously? Do you have empirical proof outside of your own pre-concieved notions? Or do you just believe that they MUST work harder than anyone else because that's the group YOU belong to? Well, with needing to make up the points given out the certain minorities, yes, white males have to work harder to overcome those disadvantages placed upon them from government institutions. Its like telling a white man to dunk on a 10 foot rim (the standard) while blacks, latinos, and women get to use a 9 foot rim. Its either they work harder or people just believe those minorities are dumber than whites and there for need help. Take your pic.


Also, where is your data saying white Christian males are a minority? I'm sure I could twist the statistics and make that true by saying only white baptist males or only white episcopalian males, but that wouldn't be honest because it doesn't include all Christians, now does it? That said, what do you consider Christian? Catholic? Presbyterian? Methodist? Baptist? You can't make sweeping statements like that without backing or context...or maybe you can in your echo chamber where you believe you're persecuted because you're white and "Christian". Give me a break...Do they consist of more than 50% of the voting block? I am sorry I used the word "minority", what I should have said is that they dont hold all the power in the voting booth anymore like they once did. Since it is now socially acceptable to vote for things that exclude white males, and Christians in some respects, white male Christians get oppressed through the masses of voters that arent of that demographic. And yes, if we are looking at people that are of voting age, males are already a minority to females.

at birth: 1.048 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.75 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2010 est.)

According to last census. So, just that alone tells you I am right.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-28-2014, 06:41 PM
At the risk of jumping in a little too late...I think you're making a few assumptions here that need to be challenged. First, "White christian males tend to work harder"? Seriously? Do you have empirical proof outside of your own pre-concieved notions? Or do you just believe that they MUST work harder than anyone else because that's the group YOU belong to?

Also, where is your data saying white Christian males are a minority? I'm sure I could twist the statistics and make that true by saying only white baptist males or only white episcopalian males, but that wouldn't be honest because it doesn't include all Christians, now does it? That said, what do you consider Christian? Catholic? Presbyterian? Methodist? Baptist? You can't make sweeping statements like that without backing or context...or maybe you can in your echo chamber where you believe you're persecuted because you're white and "Christian". Give me a break...

If you go listen to about 1000 hours of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the AM radio, you'll understand what he is talking about.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 06:43 PM
I agree. But what I'm saying is that I didn't make it about that. What's ironic is that a very member of the specific age/race demographic that accuses others outside of that demographic of doing it all the time... has done it himself. My intent was to simply add my two cents and be done with it. Not to continue the discussion on it.


What was YOUR first response to this thread? The first response by anyone? You made it about race when I was talking about the way the liberal media spun what the bill was about. Liberal media said it was an anti-gay bill while conservative media called it exacly what it was named.

A little reminder of YOUR first post incase you forgot.


As badly as you want to be able to go to a bar that only lets in heterosexual white Christian males, I'm sorry. It's not gonna happen for you. Get over it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2014, 06:44 PM
If you go listen to about 1000 hours of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the AM radio, you'll understand what he is talking about.

I listen to neither of them, thanks for playing.

Rusty Jones
02-28-2014, 07:02 PM
But whites or christians or males are not the protected class any more.

They never were. All this talk about AA, and you don't even know what a protected class is. Neither "white" nor "black" is a protected class. RACE is a protected class. Neither Christianity nor Islam is a protected class. RELIGION is a projected class. You know those disclaimers about how "We do not discriminate on the basis of A, B, C, D, E, or F?" They listed the applicable protected classes in that disclaimer!

Jesus FUCKING Christ!


Well, when wrong information is given in an anecdote it seems confusing. I question....kinda like throwing the bullshit flag. You are a fan of that if I remember correctly.

Actually what I meant (which you realize) is that MY post refuted your assertion regarding Harris Teeter. You seemed to neglect to answer that.

Take a page from my book........................'I misspoke, my mistake'.....................it's not hard.

I acknowledge what you're saying. But the problem is, it contradicts my own personal experience back in April of 2012. I was a GS-7 Step 1 at the time supporting my family on that income, and my wife was out of work due to a high risk pregnancy, so we got WIC. We were in Ghent, and decided to stop at Harris Teeter to use the WIC slips, and we couldn't - we were told that they weren't accepted there, and they even threw in the unsolicited information that they don't accept EBT either.

I'm not going to say that the information you got was wrong if that's what they told you, but it's really hard for me to say that I misspoke when I know what I experienced.


At the risk of jumping in a little too late...I think you're making a few assumptions here that need to be challenged. First, "White christian males tend to work harder"? Seriously? Do you have empirical proof outside of your own pre-concieved notions? Or do you just believe that they MUST work harder than anyone else because that's the group YOU belong to?

Also, where is your data saying white Christian males are a minority? I'm sure I could twist the statistics and make that true by saying only white baptist males or only white episcopalian males, but that wouldn't be honest because it doesn't include all Christians, now does it? That said, what do you consider Christian? Catholic? Presbyterian? Methodist? Baptist? You can't make sweeping statements like that without backing or context...or maybe you can in your echo chamber where you believe you're persecuted because you're white and "Christian". Give me a break...

But he's not racist though. Don't "play the race card" and call him racist. Because he doesn't like that. Oh, and you're a racebaiter losing the debate and using racism as a clutch if you do.


What was YOUR first response to this thread? The first response by anyone? You made it about race when I was talking about the way the liberal media spun what the bill was about. Liberal media said it was an anti-gay bill while conservative media called it exacly what it was named.

A little reminder of YOUR first post incase you forgot.

Yes, I mentioned "white" among OTHER things. Funny. Had I left out "white," you wouldn't have given two shits about the "heterosexual" (if sexual orientation hadn't already been the topic), "Christian," or "male" parts. But, hey, throw in "white" and WJ5 loses his fucking mind.

PburghNo1
02-28-2014, 07:36 PM
Well, with needing to make up the points given out the certain minorities, yes, white males have to work harder to overcome those disadvantages placed upon them from government institutions. Its like telling a white man to dunk on a 10 foot rim (the standard) while blacks, latinos, and women get to use a 9 foot rim. Its either they work harder or people just believe those minorities are dumber than whites and there for need help. Take your pic.

White males have to overcome institutional disadvantages from the Government? Seriously? What planet do you live on? Since this is a military site, I'll choose the military as an example. Not all encompassing, of course, but pretty telling nonetheless, since the military is supposed to be merit-based...

African-American CMSAFs? One.
African-American SMAs? One.
African-American SMMCs? Three. (Apparently ahead of the curve)
African-American MCPONs? Zero.

African-American CSAFs? Zero.
African-American SMAs? Zero.
African-American CSAs? Zero.
African-American CNOs? Zero.

So who deals with the institutionalized discrimination, exactly? Don't show up with the weak argument that white males are at some sort of disadvantage. It's not the case and you know it. As a white male, it offends me that you're lumping me in with people like yourself who make these types of statements. You sure sound to me like you're upset and scared that your race and/or sex's power and influence may be waning and don't like it.


Do they consist of more than 50% of the voting block? I am sorry I used the word "minority", what I should have said is that they dont hold all the power in the voting booth anymore like they once did. Since it is now socially acceptable to vote for things that exclude white males, and Christians in some respects, white male Christians get oppressed through the masses of voters that arent of that demographic. And yes, if we are looking at people that are of voting age, males are already a minority to females.

at birth: 1.048 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.75 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2010 est.)

According to last census. So, just that alone tells you I am right.

So the census data shows females outnumber males--congratulations--but it still doesn't make you right. Women outnumbering men, doesn't equate to white male Christians having any rights taken away or being discriminated against. You say it's socially acceptable to vote for things that exclude white males and/or Christians? Name one. I'm seriously curious about what you consider exclusion or discriminatory towards you, your gender and your race. Regardless, I'm sure you were outraged when it was socially acceptable to vote for segregation and discriminatory policies in the South in the not-too-distant past. But wait, that must be okay, because it wasn't white Christian males being discriminated against and they had the power at the voting booth, right?

By the way, I noticed you still didn't address what "Christian" means so we can all figure out what denomination you're using to twist your way to yourself being a persecuted minority.

garhkal
02-28-2014, 07:55 PM
That's the point I am making. That the politicians don't care about the politics. They care about lining their pockets. If they really believed in the law they would have held their ground.

Which is why i feel politicians need to go back to how they were in the 1700s and 1800s, where to serve WAS its own reward, not a chance to line your pockets.

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2014, 07:55 PM
White males have to overcome institutional disadvantages from the Government? Seriously? What planet do you live on? Since this is a military site, I'll choose the military as an example. Not all encompassing, of course, but pretty telling nonetheless, since the military is supposed to be merit-based...

African-American CMSAFs? One.
African-American SMAs? One.
African-American SMMCs? Three. (Apparently ahead of the curve)
African-American MCPONs? Zero.

African-American CSAFs? Zero.
African-American SMAs? Zero.
African-American CSAs? Zero.
African-American CNOs? Zero.

So who deals with the institutionalized discrimination, exactly? Don't show up with the weak argument that white males are at some sort of disadvantage. It's not the case and you know it. As a white male, it offends me that you're lumping me in with people like yourself who make these types of statements. You sure sound to me like you're upset and scared that your race and/or sex's power and influence may be waning and don't like it.



So the census data shows females outnumber males--congratulations--but it still doesn't make you right. Women outnumbering men, doesn't equate to white male Christians having any rights taken away or being discriminated against. You say it's socially acceptable to vote for things that exclude white males and/or Christians? Name one. I'm seriously curious about what you consider exclusion or discriminatory towards you, your gender and your race. Regardless, I'm sure you were outraged when it was socially acceptable to vote for segregation and discriminatory policies in the South in the not-too-distant past. But wait, that must be okay, because it wasn't white Christian males being discriminated against and they had the power at the voting booth, right?

By the way, I noticed you still didn't address what "Christian" means so we can all figure out what denomination you're using to twist your way to yourself being a persecuted minority.


I had to go Google something because I could have sworn that there have been two black CMSAF's.

PburghNo1
02-28-2014, 08:01 PM
Nope. Just Chief Barnes...though I also googled to confirm before I spoke out of turn...

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 08:08 PM
Which is why i feel politicians need to go back to how they were in the 1700s and 1800s, where to serve WAS its own reward, not a chance to line your pockets.

Agree, but as long as we keep voting the greedy bastards in, it'll never stop. Unfortunately, the majority of voters know what they see on TV ads. That's it. No research into the other candidates. And I can't see that ever changing. Maybe with the progression of the internet and social media, one day it won't take millions of dollars to run a campaign. Until that day, unfortunately, there's no chance of a change.

sandsjames
02-28-2014, 08:09 PM
I had to go Google something because I could have sworn that there have been two black CMSAF's.


This is the last day of Black History Month, so you've done your part for becoming more educated. Bravo.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-28-2014, 11:55 PM
I listen to neither of them, thanks for playing.

I listen to Hannity's radio show when I'm in the car and your whole narrative sounds liked it comes directly from him.

garhkal
03-01-2014, 06:56 AM
Agree, but as long as we keep voting the greedy bastards in, it'll never stop. Unfortunately, the majority of voters know what they see on TV ads. That's it. No research into the other candidates. And I can't see that ever changing. Maybe with the progression of the internet and social media, one day it won't take millions of dollars to run a campaign. Until that day, unfortunately, there's no chance of a change.

WE can hope...

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-02-2014, 01:41 AM
They never were. All this talk about AA, and you don't even know what a protected class is. Neither "white" nor "black" is a protected class. RACE is a protected class. Neither Christianity nor Islam is a protected class. RELIGION is a projected class. You know those disclaimers about how "We do not discriminate on the basis of A, B, C, D, E, or F?" They listed the applicable protected classes in that disclaimer!
But we all see that you can't hold your religious beliefs above another protected class, even ones that aren't protected like homosexuality.



Yes, I mentioned "white" among OTHER things. Funny. Had I left out "white," you wouldn't have given two shits about the "heterosexual" (if sexual orientation hadn't already been the topic), "Christian," or "male" parts. But, hey, throw in "white" and WJ5 loses his fucking mind.
You made it about the classes when I mentioned none of them in my initial post. I brought this discussion up on the basis of the liberal media and the way they spun a law that was there to help a "protected class" against an assault on their civil liberties into "gay banning". If you could have stayed on topic, you would have never mentioned any of those groups, "Heterosexual", "white", "male". But yet, you show the efficiency that the liberal media has on lofo citizens.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-02-2014, 02:03 AM
White males have to overcome institutional disadvantages from the Government? Seriously? What planet do you live on? Since this is a military site, I'll choose the military as an example. Not all encompassing, of course, but pretty telling nonetheless, since the military is supposed to be merit-based...

African-American CMSAFs? One.
African-American SMAs? One.
African-American SMMCs? Three. (Apparently ahead of the curve)
African-American MCPONs? Zero.

African-American CSAFs? Zero.
African-American SMAs? Zero.
African-American CSAs? Zero.
African-American CNOs? Zero.

So who deals with the institutionalized discrimination, exactly? Don't show up with the weak argument that white males are at some sort of disadvantage. It's not the case and you know it. As a white male, it offends me that you're lumping me in with people like yourself who make these types of statements. You sure sound to me like you're upset and scared that your race and/or sex's power and influence may be waning and don't like it.

Its funny you pic the Military since its one place there really isn't any set guidelines on "boosting" minorities. Look at college admissions and scores. AA gives "minorities" boosts. Hell, look at Obama's new "Brother's keeper" drive.

Its sad that you look at people as a form of groups instead of yourself as an individual. I don't advocate for the government to reverse the role and give whites the advantage again like what happened with Jim Crow and Black code. The government shouldn't be involved at all and allow people to be promoted or succeed on their own accomplishments and test scores.


So the census data shows females outnumber males--congratulations--but it still doesn't make you right. You obviously suck at reading comprehension when I was clear that white males are minorities in the voting booth now. So if facts don't matter on who is right, I guess this is not the place to have a debate, and you just want to argue?

Women outnumbering men, doesn't equate to white male Christians having any rights taken away or being discriminated against. Not what I was saying, but since you want to bring this up, and I never did. What I said was people can vote for boosts for themselves and exclude white males because it is socially acceptable now. You did you not understand the basketball analogy when I said white males still had to do the standard 10ft rim while everyone else got to use the 9th rim?

You say it's socially acceptable to vote for things that exclude white males and/or Christians? Name one. Affirmative action. Thank you and good night.

I'm seriously curious about what you consider exclusion or discriminatory towards you, your gender and your race.Admission scores into public colleges.

Regardless, I'm sure you were outraged when it was socially acceptable to vote for segregation and discriminatory policies in the South in the not-too-distant past. IF i was even born back then, YES. As I said earlier, I am for no government instituted mandates on private businesses. Jim Crow was government instituted and government cohesion on private businesses to keep it segregated. Wrong back then and wrong now to "boost" one race over another.

But wait, that must be okay, because it wasn't white Christian males being discriminated against and they had the power at the voting booth, right? Do you not pay attention at all? Wrong to do it against whites, males, or Christians just as it was wrong to do against everyone else. But now that it is no longer ~75% being discriminated against, and maybe only 25%, its socially acceptable because in the democratic world that liberals love, mob rule is the law of the land. There is this thing called "grey" that is perfectly acceptable between black and white when looking at the world. I don't believe in nihilism here.

By the way, I noticed you still didn't address what "Christian" means so we can all figure out what denomination you're using to twist your way to yourself being a persecuted minority.Well, lets see. Catholics have to give birth control to their employees under Obamacare. The Christian baker who didn't want to bake the cake, they didn't give his denomination, so I can't say.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-02-2014, 02:07 AM
I listen to Hannity's radio show when I'm in the car and your whole narrative sounds liked it comes directly from him.

I don't have sirus/xm and even when I did, I always turned him off. If you look at my avatar, you should really understand how much I don't like Rush since he is part of the establishment of GOP that doesn't like libertarians.

sandsjames
03-02-2014, 04:47 PM
I wonder if an Atheist photographer could be forced to take wedding pictures inside a church.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-02-2014, 05:39 PM
I wonder if an Atheist photographer could be forced to take wedding pictures inside a church.

I'd do it no problem. I rather like churches, especially big pretty cathedrals.

sandsjames
03-02-2014, 05:51 PM
I'd do it no problem. I rather like churches, especially big pretty cathedrals.

But what about someone who doesn't want to? The prayers, the surroundings (especially at a catholic wedding). The person should not have to sit through something like that if they choose not to.

I listened to Marco Rubio on one of the morning shows this morning and I agreed with him. He's completely against someone getting turned away from a hotel, restaurant, store, etc, for the reasons we've talked about. However, he does think there is validity in people (and the photographer was the example he used) not having to attend an event they disagree with based on religious reasons.

I think there needs to be a lot of thought that goes into it, and there will always be issues.

It probably isn't even an issue, as the Governor of Arizona said when she vetoed the bill. I don't think that a homosexual couple would want a photographer who was going to bitch about it.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-02-2014, 06:07 PM
But what about someone who doesn't want to? The prayers, the surroundings (especially at a catholic wedding). The person should not have to sit through something like that if they choose not to.

I listened to Marco Rubio on one of the morning shows this morning and I agreed with him. He's completely against someone getting turned away from a hotel, restaurant, store, etc, for the reasons we've talked about. However, he does think there is validity in people (and the photographer was the example he used) not having to attend an event they disagree with based on religious reasons.

I think there needs to be a lot of thought that goes into it, and there will always be issues.

It probably isn't even an issue, as the Governor of Arizona said when she vetoed the bill. I don't think that a homosexual couple would want a photographer who was going to bitch about it.

Ok, if it was a sect that I was afraid of, say, snake handlers, I would simply say, "Sorry, I am all booked up that weekend, let me give you the number of a buddy of mine, Sandsjames. He takes great pictures, but can't do PT for shit and he complains about the Air Force too much. Otherwise, he's a great guy."

What I wouldn't say is, "Get the fuck out of here you lousy snake handlers.!"

A little common sense goes a long way, do we really need to open the door to government having a say in every single thing we do?

sandsjames
03-02-2014, 06:28 PM
Ok, if it was a sect that I was afraid of, say, snake handlers, I would simply say, "Sorry, I am all booked up that weekend, let me give you the number of a buddy of mine, Sandsjames. He takes great pictures, but can't do PT for shit and he complains about the Air Force too much. Otherwise, he's a great guy."

What I wouldn't say is, "Get the fuck out of here you lousy snake handlers.!"

A little common sense goes a long way, do we really need to open the door to government having a say in every single thing we do?

No, we do not need them having a say.

And your analogy is good (minus the sarcasm). I don't think it would ever be an issue if the (photographer) said "I'm sorry, I'm busy", etc and avoided the hostility.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-02-2014, 06:51 PM
No, we do not need them having a say.

And your analogy is good (minus the sarcasm). I don't think it would ever be an issue if the (photographer) said "I'm sorry, I'm busy", etc and avoided the hostility.

This is where you and I disagree, that was the best part of my post, especially the part about you complaining too much.

I could see you and I being good friends, and I think you'd love having me as a pal, because I would always be playing imaginative practical jokes on you.

For instance, I would make it a point to write your phone number on the bathroom wall of truck stops with instructions for the reader to call Sandsjames for some hot fun.

I'd also fill out magazine subscriptions in your name to keep you entertained with random magazines.

You'd really like having a buddy like me, trust me, you might even stop complaining about the Air Force.

garhkal
03-02-2014, 08:04 PM
As was brought up on last nights Huckabee, this law was already passed by the liberals/dems when clinton was in office, but the AZ extension was clarifying what it does and does not protect (iirc of the telecast). So what was wrong with it now that was not wrong with it then?

sandsjames
03-02-2014, 10:34 PM
This is where you and I disagree, that was the best part of my post, especially the part about you complaining too much.

I could see you and I being good friends, and I think you'd love having me as a pal, because I would always be playing imaginative practical jokes on you.

For instance, I would make it a point to write your phone number on the bathroom wall of truck stops with instructions for the reader to call Sandsjames for some hot fun.

I'd also fill out magazine subscriptions in your name to keep you entertained with random magazines.

You'd really like having a buddy like me, trust me, you might even stop complaining about the Air Force.

Ah, yes...one of your classic practical jokes. Bazinga!

You jest, but we probably would be pretty good friends. I'm a hell of a guy and almost never discuss politics, except on this forum.

PburghNo1
03-05-2014, 05:23 PM
Its funny you pic the Military since its one place there really isn't any set guidelines on "boosting" minorities. Look at college admissions and scores. AA gives "minorities" boosts. Hell, look at Obama's new "Brother's keeper" drive.

That's exactly why I chose the military...it's the one place where your utopia should be true, that we're judged as individuals, not our skin color or as a group. How well is that working? Not very, if judged by those who have reached the highest leadership positions. In the entire history of our armed forces, you're telling me there hasn't been an individual of color or a woman with the ability to serve as the Chief of a Service?


Its sad that you look at people as a form of groups instead of yourself as an individual. I don't advocate for the government to reverse the role and give whites the advantage again like what happened with Jim Crow and Black code. The government shouldn't be involved at all and allow people to be promoted or succeed on their own accomplishments and test scores.

Maybe if that advantage, in the form of Jim Crow laws as well as discriminatory hiring practices and yes discriminatory college admissions practices, wasn't there in the first place there wouldn't be a need for intervention. Simply letting people continue to discriminate and act like it's not happening is not a solution. Accomplishments and test scores are sometimes dictated by the environment from which you came. I was lucky and had opportunities, some of those I've worked with didn't and it doesn't make them any less worthwhile or worthy of success.


You obviously suck at reading comprehension when I was clear that white males are minorities in the voting booth now. So if facts don't matter on who is right, I guess this is not the place to have a debate, and you just want to argue?

Oh, I suck at reading comprehension? You were clear that white males are minorities in the voting booth now. Facts do matter--you chose to highlight your point with census data showing females outnumber males. I probably should've been more clear and said "It still doesn't make your overall premise right" because it doesn't. You cherry-picked a statistic and acted like it proved your point that "white Christian males" are outnumbered. Just because you're outnumbered by women at the voting booth, doesn't make you outnumbered by everyone.

For example:
- Religion: 77% of the US self identifies as Christian (HINT: You're not a minority)
- Race: 72% of the US population is white (HINT: You're not a minority)

Now, those who look and think like you might be a minority, but that doesn't actually make you one.


Not what I was saying, but since you want to bring this up, and I never did. What I said was people can vote for boosts for themselves and exclude white males because it is socially acceptable now. You did you not understand the basketball analogy when I said white males still had to do the standard 10ft rim while everyone else got to use the 9th rim? Affirmative action. Thank you and good night.
Admission scores into public colleges.

Affirmative action seeks to address overt historical discrimination associated with minority groups. We can debate all day long the merits of affirmative action policy, however, you're never going to get me to agree that it's not something that needs to be addressed. Historically, opportunities for those in minority groups (race & gender) haven't been readily available due to inherent discriminatory practices (that still exist) and for you to pretend that wasn't (and isn't) the case is just plain ignorant.


IF i was even born back then, YES. As I said earlier, I am for no government instituted mandates on private businesses. Jim Crow was government instituted and government cohesion on private businesses to keep it segregated. Wrong back then and wrong now to "boost" one race over another. Do you not pay attention at all? Wrong to do it against whites, males, or Christians just as it was wrong to do against everyone else. But now that it is no longer ~75% being discriminated against, and maybe only 25%, its socially acceptable because in the democratic world that liberals love, mob rule is the law of the land. There is this thing called "grey" that is perfectly acceptable between black and white when looking at the world. I don't believe in nihilism here.

By not addressing intrinsic discriminatory practices by those in hiring and admission procedures and ignoring them altogether, you are implicitly approving of those practices and allowing, through lack of action, the "boosting" of one race over others.


Well, lets see. Catholics have to give birth control to their employees under Obamacare. The Christian baker who didn't want to bake the cake, they didn't give his denomination, so I can't say.

Straight "Christian" right-wing BS. Catholic (and other religious) organizations have to provide a means for their employees to gain coverage--through a third-party insurer--that includes birth control. No one is forcing a priest or pastor to hand out the pill and no one is preventing anyone from practicing their religion. Just one question on this one: Why should an employee have to comply with their employer's personal religious dogma?

I was out for a while, so forgive the late response to your drivel.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-05-2014, 06:21 PM
That's exactly why I chose the military...it's the one place where your utopia should be true, that we're judged as individuals, not our skin color or as a group. How well is that working? Not very, if judged by those who have reached the highest leadership positions. In the entire history of our armed forces, you're telling me there hasn't been an individual of color or a woman with the ability to serve as the Chief of a Service? So, are you saying that there needs to be an equal amount of minority leaders as there are white males? Are you suggesting that those that have been placed in power of top dog where not based on merrit but mostly on skin color? Does that mean Obama has only selected people based off their skin too or the only viable canidates to be top dogs?


Maybe if that advantage, in the form of Jim Crow laws as well as discriminatory hiring practices and yes discriminatory college admissions practices, wasn't there in the first place there wouldn't be a need for intervention. Simply letting people continue to discriminate and act like it's not happening is not a solution. Accomplishments and test scores are sometimes dictated by the environment from which you came. I was lucky and had opportunities, some of those I've worked with didn't and it doesn't make them any less worthwhile or worthy of success. I will tell you the same thing I told Rusty, they were there in the first place because of the racist governments that prevented them from changing on their own. The federal government only had to remove the local governments from promoting racial oppression and the free market would have changed it on their own. You dont think government forcing people to do something makes them recentful? I will like to direct you to the way a lot of blacks act towards whites and tell me government force doesnt make people resentful.


Oh, I suck at reading comprehension? You were clear that white males are minorities in the voting booth now. Facts do matter--you chose to highlight your point with census data showing females outnumber males. I probably should've been more clear and said "It still doesn't make your overall premise right" because it doesn't. You cherry-picked a statistic and acted like it proved your point that "white Christian males" are outnumbered. Just because you're outnumbered by women at the voting booth, doesn't make you outnumbered by everyone.

For example:
- Religion: 77% of the US self identifies as Christian (HINT: You're not a minority)
- Race: 72% of the US population is white (HINT: You're not a minority)

Now, those who look and think like you might be a minority, but that doesn't actually make you one. One, cherry picking numbers is what you are doing since "Christian" also includes blacks and latinos and females and Asians. So, scrape 98% of the black Christians, blacks vote liberal en mass. Strip away half of latinos, Women, and Asians who vote liberal as well. Then another quarter guilt ridden white males and then Christian males are back below 50% in the voting booth again.

Two, I will say this again, white males is the group I am talking about, not whites in general since whites arent all for one party by a long shot. You sorting this out with cherry picked numbers is your failed understanding of what I am talking about.


Affirmative action seeks to address overt historical discrimination associated with minority groups. We can debate all day long the merits of affirmative action policy, however, you're never going to get me to agree that it's not something that needs to be addressed. Historically, opportunities for those in minority groups (race & gender) haven't been readily available due to inherent discriminatory practices (that still exist) and for you to pretend that wasn't (and isn't) the case is just plain ignorant. I agree that there was discrimination before. I dont agree that it is still prevelant today. You have no basis to prove that it is and want proof of a negative that cant be done.


By not addressing intrinsic discriminatory practices by those in hiring and admission procedures and ignoring them altogether, you are implicitly approving of those practices and allowing, through lack of action, the "boosting" of one race over others. Can you show where discrimination is happening? Not with numbers of who leads what corporation or how many people get hired, actual proof. Something like corp "x" hires 1% blacks even though 85% of applicants are black and are well qualified for the positions availible. Not one anicdote, but a prolonged history of said action?


Straight "Christian" right-wing BS. Catholic (and other religious) organizations have to provide a means for their employees to gain coverage--through a third-party insurer--that includes birth control. No one is forcing a priest or pastor to hand out the pill and no one is preventing anyone from practicing their religion. Just one question on this one: Why should an employee have to comply with their employer's personal religious dogma?

I was out for a while, so forgive the late response to your drivel.
They more than give that ability to their employees even before Obamacare. Its called a paycheck. Why should they be required to do anything more than that?

Why should they? Because they know who they were going to work for before they even applied for the job. Why should the employer change their beliefs for the employees who volunarily chose to work there?

PburghNo1
03-05-2014, 08:53 PM
So, are you saying that there needs to be an equal amount of minority leaders as there are white males? Are you suggesting that those that have been placed in power of top dog where not based on merrit but mostly on skin color? Does that mean Obama has only selected people based off their skin too or the only viable canidates to be top dogs?

Not saying that at all--never did. What I AM saying is that historically, it's been prevalent in the organization dating back to integration....there was only SO far an African-American could get and there was only SO far a woman could get...whether or not you choose to believe it. The Air Force did away with service photos in personnel files for that very reason--to attempt to eliminate discrimination. Was it 100% effective? No, but it was a good step.


I will tell you the same thing I told Rusty, they were there in the first place because of the racist governments that prevented them from changing on their own. The federal government only had to remove the local governments from promoting racial oppression and the free market would have changed it on their own. You dont think government forcing people to do something makes them recentful? I will like to direct you to the way a lot of blacks act towards whites and tell me government force doesnt make people resentful.


One, cherry picking numbers is what you are doing since "Christian" also includes blacks and latinos and females and Asians. So, scrape 98% of the black Christians, blacks vote liberal en mass. Strip away half of latinos, Women, and Asians who vote liberal as well. Then another quarter guilt ridden white males and then Christian males are back below 50% in the voting booth again.

This is plain hilarious to me. You choose not to identify with anyone who doesn't meet your specific criteria and be exactly what you are. You can't possibly identify with another Christian, who you may share values with, because they're a different race? You can't possibly identify with another race, with whom you may share economic interests, because they're not Christians? And "scrape 98% of black Christians"? Seriously? Anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe or look exactly like you do is wrong. I got it.


Two, I will say this again, white males is the group I am talking about, not whites in general since whites arent all for one party by a long shot. You sorting this out with cherry picked numbers is your failed understanding of what I am talking about.

I understand exactly what you're talking about, I just happen to think you're completely wrong. Again, what you're doing is ensureing there's no one demographic group that's a majority that you will identify with because you feel the need to transform yourself into a persecuted minority. For what reason, I don't know.


I agree that there was discrimination before. I dont agree that it is still prevelant today. You have no basis to prove that it is and want proof of a negative that cant be done.

Can you show where discrimination is happening? Not with numbers of who leads what corporation or how many people get hired, actual proof. Something like corp "x" hires 1% blacks even though 85% of applicants are black and are well qualified for the positions availible. Not one anicdote, but a prolonged history of said action?


You're absolutely right, there's no such thing as discrimination or inappropriate workplace activities. It's the 21st Century, right?

- http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/bankofamerica-discrimination-idUSL2N0HJ28T20130923
- http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/eeoc-scores-wins-in-pair-of-systemic-discrimination-cases.html
- http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-15-09.cfm
- http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-29-09a.cfm
- http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-23-13a.cfm



They more than give that ability to their employees even before Obamacare. Its called a paycheck. Why should they be required to do anything more than that? Why should they? Because they know who they were going to work for before they even applied for the job. Why should the employer change their beliefs for the employees who volunarily chose to work there?

A benefits package--including healthcare--is, to many employees (and employers) part of the "paycheck" you mention. Healthcare, as conservatives are so quick to say, is between a patient and a doctor and no one else. Why should my employer have ANYTHING to say about what healthcare I recieve? Employers/employees can't ask about religious preference in interviews, how is an employee supposed to know what their employer's specific religious beliefs are before they start working there (outside of overtly religious corporations like Chick-Fil-A)?

To take this to the (il)logical conclusion, should my employer be able to approve procedures I get because it might offend their religious beliefs? What happens if my employer is a Jehovah's Witness and I need a blood transfusion? That's against their religion--should they be able to stop it and let me die because it might offend them?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-06-2014, 01:43 PM
Not saying that at all--never did. What I AM saying is that historically, it's been prevalent in the organization dating back to integration....there was only SO far an African-American could get and there was only SO far a woman could get...whether or not you choose to believe it. The Air Force did away with service photos in personnel files for that very reason--to attempt to eliminate discrimination. Was it 100% effective? No, but it was a good step. So how do people know who they are passing over for promotion if they dont have a pic of the candidate? Oh, thats right, individual biographies are all over the internet with pics. But still, you are still claiming racism without a shred of proof of why someone gets selected over another.


This is plain hilarious to me. You choose not to identify with anyone who doesn't meet your specific criteria and be exactly what you are. You can't possibly identify with another Christian, who you may share values with, because they're a different race? You can't possibly identify with another race, with whom you may share economic interests, because they're not Christians? And "scrape 98% of black Christians"? Seriously? Anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe or look exactly like you do is wrong. I got it. Ok, lets make this simple. Since 98% of blacks vote for liberals, and liberals love touting "womens' choice" when it comes to killing a baby in the womb, does a Black Christian (male or female) still share the same values I do? Even when blacks are 70% of the abortion business for planned parenthood? Its not about what they look like, it what they stand for and how liberals label laws and the GOP. I am not registered GOP, I am a libertarian btw. I use the data that is presented and availible. GOP tries to pass a law in AZ that allows PRIVATE business owners to turn away service when it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Liberal media calls it anti-gay even though there was nothing in the bill that mentioned Gays. GOP tries to pass voter ID laws because there are places with a voting block of people that are 125 years old still registered to vote. Yet the LIberal media says its to stop the black voters. The point I am making with the disgaurding of certain Christians is that they dont vote with their principles of Christianity, they vote with their political dogma masters that say its "The Christian thing to do to take money from the rich".


I understand exactly what you're talking about, I just happen to think you're completely wrong. Again, what you're doing is ensureing there's no one demographic group that's a majority that you will identify with because you feel the need to transform yourself into a persecuted minority. For what reason, I don't know. Because they are. Actually, Asian males are right there in the same boat. Since they already score well enough for college, they dont get a boost either. Voting for bonuses for all races and genders except for the ones that do the best already is the same as voting for oppression of those people. Its symantics to saying its "helping" blacks get into college when really it hurts because they wont be ready for college when they dont have to work as hard to get in. Say someone is going into the NFL. You shave off a few tenths of a second off their 40 time and add 2 inches to their verts and standing long jump because they are white. Some whites are already fast enough to meet the average speed. But you will get some in there that are not fast enough and will be drafted who may actually play. Do you really think they are still ready to play in the NFL? Do you think it would be fair to send them to the top competitive association for football when there is still other places they can go and still play like Arena league or CFL?




You're absolutely right, there's no such thing as discrimination or inappropriate workplace activities. It's the 21st Century, right?

- http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/bankofamerica-discrimination-idUSL2N0HJ28T20130923
- http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/eeoc-scores-wins-in-pair-of-systemic-discrimination-cases.htmlThe second didnt pop up.
I see that the BoA didnt really show proof of discrimination. Just that "a lot" of blacks didnt get the job they applied for as ruled by the opinion of the judge.

- http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-15-09.cfmThis happened in one area, exceptions of the rules are something I over looked and conceed will happen. BUT, let me see, there is no mention that any of the grafitti was drawn by whites. One of the suits was for a single black lady, this is not history. And the other was about "dozens" (out of how many people working there) as being unhappy they had to do manual labor which they felt was placed upon them because of their race. And with most civil suits, its up to the defendant to prove not guilty. But as this wasnt clear if it was a settlement or court ruling.

- http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-29-09a.cfmAgain, this is a settlement, not a ruling. Nothing in the article said the women had the education or experience to be promoted. But then again, this probably comes from not meeting the quotas set out by AA. And I notice this lawsuit happened in liberal CO again even though is was supposedly happening all around the place.

- http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-23-13a.cfmYeah, people knew what they were getting into when they signed up for this job. One, it was a settlement. Two, I know they put into the terms of employment that everyone will be expected to do what was required of them. I have seen the "TOE" for scientology working facilities. My mom read the TOE when she was applying for a job and stopped when she saw those requirements.

Businesses do settlements because its cheaper than the court system where they have the obligation of proof of their practices. Just like OJ simpson being aquitted from criminal charges just to be hit with the civil suit and losing because the defendent has to proove he was right. Then its just about majority rule when it comes to verdict, not unanmious.


A benefits package--including healthcare--is, to many employees (and employers) part of the "paycheck" you mention. Healthcare, as conservatives are so quick to say, is between a patient and a doctor and no one else. Why should my employer have ANYTHING to say about what healthcare I recieve? Employers/employees can't ask about religious preference in interviews, how is an employee supposed to know what their employer's specific religious beliefs are before they start working there (outside of overtly religious corporations like Chick-Fil-A)? If the business is providing the healthcare, they have every right to make stipulations on what is covered. When was the last time you heard of the military paying for an abortion that didnt threaten the womans life?

If you start going to work for a Catholic church or ministry, are you really going to question what their religious beliefs are? And, as far as I know, CFA's only mandated religious belief they "force" onto their employees is that CFA wont be open on Sunday.


To take this to the (il)logical conclusion, should my employer be able to approve procedures I get because it might offend their religious beliefs? What happens if my employer is a Jehovah's Witness and I need a blood transfusion? That's against their religion--should they be able to stop it and let me die because it might offend them?Are they providing you with your healthcare? This all goes to the same question of, "If I am providing you with money for groceries through a government program, should I as the tax payer have the right to forbid you from buying soda, chips, weed or other unhealthy products?

PburghNo1
03-06-2014, 09:58 PM
So how do people know who they are passing over for promotion if they dont have a pic of the candidate? Oh, thats right, individual biographies are all over the internet with pics. But still, you are still claiming racism without a shred of proof of why someone gets selected over another.

In using the Air Force's personnel folders as an example, I wasn't referring to Senior Leader positions, instead Major/Lt Col and SMSgt/CMSgt boards...those on the boards don't have the time to go google a bio and see what race the person is--which is a good thing--an individual is judged by their merits and accomplishments.



Ok, lets make this simple. Since 98% of blacks vote for liberals, and liberals love touting "womens' choice" when it comes to killing a baby in the womb, does a Black Christian (male or female) still share the same values I do? Even when blacks are 70% of the abortion business for planned parenthood? Its not about what they look like, it what they stand for and how liberals label laws and the GOP. I am not registered GOP, I am a libertarian btw. I use the data that is presented and availible. GOP tries to pass a law in AZ that allows PRIVATE business owners to turn away service when it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Liberal media calls it anti-gay even though there was nothing in the bill that mentioned Gays. GOP tries to pass voter ID laws because there are places with a voting block of people that are 125 years old still registered to vote. Yet the LIberal media says its to stop the black voters. The point I am making with the disgaurding of certain Christians is that they dont vote with their principles of Christianity, they vote with their political dogma masters that say its "The Christian thing to do to take money from the rich".

So you're okay with lumping all African-Americans into groups, but not okay with being lumped into a group yourself? You say you're all about the individual, why not take the individuals at face value or is it just easier for you to lump African-Americans and everyone else into groups in order to demonize them and make them the boogey-man. I need to see proof of systemic voter fraud before I buy your voter ID nonsense also. I also won't dignify your abortion comment (bait?) with a response as that's a different conversation for a different time.


Because they are. Actually, Asian males are right there in the same boat. Since they already score well enough for college, they dont get a boost either. Voting for bonuses for all races and genders except for the ones that do the best already is the same as voting for oppression of those people. Its symantics to saying its "helping" blacks get into college when really it hurts because they wont be ready for college when they dont have to work as hard to get in. Say someone is going into the NFL. You shave off a few tenths of a second off their 40 time and add 2 inches to their verts and standing long jump because they are white. Some whites are already fast enough to meet the average speed. But you will get some in there that are not fast enough and will be drafted who may actually play. Do you really think they are still ready to play in the NFL? Do you think it would be fair to send them to the top competitive association for football when there is still other places they can go and still play like Arena league or CFL?

I don't think we'll ever agree on this one. I don't see the correlation between a 40 time and offering an opportunity to a disadvantaged student.


The second didnt pop up.
I see that the BoA didnt really show proof of discrimination. Just that "a lot" of blacks didnt get the job they applied for as ruled by the opinion of the judge.

I'm sure you're aware of this and are just trying to be difficult, BUT.....A Court Opinion is: "a statement that is prepared by a judge or court announcing the decision after a case is tried; includes a summary of the facts, a recitation of the applicable law and how it relates to the facts, the rationale supporting the decision, and a judgment; and is usually presented in writing, though occasionally an oral opinion is rendered." So, yes--it was the judge's opinion and was a legally binding ruling. Don't get yourself wrapped around the axle with terminology.


This happened in one area, exceptions of the rules are something I over looked and conceed will happen. BUT, let me see, there is no mention that any of the grafitti was drawn by whites. One of the suits was for a single black lady, this is not history. And the other was about "dozens" (out of how many people working there) as being unhappy they had to do manual labor which they felt was placed upon them because of their race. And with most civil suits, its up to the defendant to prove not guilty. But as this wasnt clear if it was a settlement or court ruling.

My interpretation is it was a settlement. Regardless, it doesn't matter who drew the graffiti--management didn't remove it for years after it being brought to their attention which is implicit approval. It also doesn't matter whether it was a settlement or court opinion--enough proof was presented to Albertsons for them to submit to four years of court ordered monitoring and a monetary penalty.


Again, this is a settlement, not a ruling. Nothing in the article said the women had the education or experience to be promoted. But then again, this probably comes from not meeting the quotas set out by AA. And I notice this lawsuit happened in liberal CO again even though is was supposedly happening all around the place.

You act as if settlements are somehow less of a finding. I will concede that sometimes corporations settle because it's the path of least resistance, but those settlements usually involve monetary exchange only. I would submit that Judges, as in this case and the previous one, would probably not order four years of monitoring without due cause and evidence.


Yeah, people knew what they were getting into when they signed up for this job. One, it was a settlement. Two, I know they put into the terms of employment that everyone will be expected to do what was required of them. I have seen the "TOE" for scientology working facilities. My mom read the TOE when she was applying for a job and stopped when she saw those requirements.
Businesses do settlements because its cheaper than the court system where they have the obligation of proof of their practices. Just like OJ simpson being aquitted from criminal charges just to be hit with the civil suit and losing because the defendent has to proove he was right. Then its just about majority rule when it comes to verdict, not unanmious.

How do you know with certainty Dynamic Medical Services, Inc provided that same Terms of Employment to these employees? You don't. Regardless, in our nation, employers cannot make participation in religious practices a mandatory condition of employment.


If the business is providing the healthcare, they have every right to make stipulations on what is covered. When was the last time you heard of the military paying for an abortion that didnt threaten the womans life?

The military doesn't do anything because they don't have anyone who provides those services. Tricare, the insurer, doesn't cover it because they don't consider it medically necessary--not because of a religious objection. Apples and Oranges. If you want to have the discussion about whether or not birth control is medically necessary, that's fine, but to try to compare the two in the the context of the military system of healthcare is an extremely poor analogy. Personally, I believe, employers should still not be able to have any discussions on healthcare choices with their employees. You act like your medical bills go to your boss's church. Insurance tied to employment is historically nothing more than collective bargaining and group cost-sharing as a benefits package. Companies can offer lower cost group insurance policies by increasing the number of employees who utilize them. It's the whole concept of insurance. I may not get into auto accidents, but I understand that my premiums cover those who do. What I don't understand and you fail to articulate is why an employer should be able to dictate what an employee's health insurance covers based on their own personal religious beliefs.


If you start going to work for a Catholic church or ministry, are you really going to question what their religious beliefs are? And, as far as I know, CFA's only mandated religious belief they "force" onto their employees is that CFA wont be open on Sunday.

If I work for a Catholic Church, I would say no one, including myself, would have any illusions about their religious beliefs. Though the earlier example--Dynamic Medical Services, Inc--isn't as readuily apparent and also isn't a tax exempt religious organization.


Are they providing you with your healthcare? This all goes to the same question of, "If I am providing you with money for groceries through a government program, should I as the tax payer have the right to forbid you from buying soda, chips, weed or other unhealthy products?

The company would be providing access to a healthcare plan as part of a benefits package--and no they shouldn't have the right to choose which procedures are covered under that healthcare and which aren't. Should they be able to dictate how many and which sex children I have by choosing only to cover only the firstborn male under an insurance policy? No, of course not. It's not a corporation or employer's decision.

If an employer chooses to not provide health insurance as part of the benefits package based on religious grounds and is NOT a tax exempt religious organization such as a church, they should be prepared for the tax penalty that comes with it and prepared to pay a higher, more competetive wage than those companies who offer healthcare plans as part of a benefits package.

And this conversation is unrelated to government assistance programs like SNAP. I see you trying to connect the dots between unrelated hot-button issues (you brought up abortion and food stamps unprompted) to demonize them and it's pretty weak.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-07-2014, 01:31 PM
Eh, I am bored. Have a good one