indiana

Padawanbater2 · Mar 30, 2015

Rob Roy said:
You are failing to recognize that all people have the right to decline another human interaction, otherwise actions that force an interaction, such as rape would be okay.

So, in the sense of having equal rights, the bigoted shop keeper, my gay son and I all have the equal right to chose our associations, without having an interaction forced upon us.

Do you oppose the civil rights act of 1964?

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Do you oppose the civil rights act of 1964?

I oppose any act by a coercive government.

I think people should be able to chose their interactions on a peaceful and voluntary basis of all the involved parties.

How about you, do you think people should be free to interact without somebody threatening force on them?

Padawanbater2 · Mar 30, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I oppose any act by a coercive government.

I think people should be able to chose their interactions on a peaceful and voluntary basis of all the involved parties.

How about you, do you think people should be free to interact without somebody threatening force on them?

Does that mean you oppose every act ever established by the US government?

People should be free to have their own beliefs, but when someones beliefs conflict with the rules established by society, like equal rights, that person should not be free to act on them. A persons religious beliefs should not be justification to deny equal services based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That's not any different than denying someone goods/services based on skin color

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Does that mean you oppose every act ever established by the US government?

People should be free to have their own beliefs, but when someones beliefs conflict with the rules established by society, like equal rights, that person should not be free to act on them. A persons religious beliefs should not be justification to deny equal services based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That's not any different than denying someone goods/services based on skin color

I oppose the idea that something that has coercion imbedded from the start is a good model for teaching manners.

It was wrong for them to enforce forced segregation and it is wrong for them to enforce forced integration.

It is wrong for anybody or group of people to run others lives for them.

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Does that mean you oppose every act ever established by the US government?

People should be free to have their own beliefs, but when someones beliefs conflict with the rules established by society, like equal rights, that person should not be free to act on them. A persons religious beliefs should not be justification to deny equal services based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That's not any different than denying someone goods/services based on skin color

So you think using force against a person that remains on their property and would prefer not to interact with you is okay?

Why is that?

Padawanbater2 · Mar 30, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I oppose the idea that something that has coercion imbedded from the start is a good model for teaching manners.

It was wrong for them to enforce forced segregation and it is wrong for them to enforce forced integration.

It is wrong for anybody or group of people to run others lives for them.

How would an African American person enjoy equal rights if a shop owner didn't want to serve him based on skin color if it wasn't federally enforced?

Padawanbater2 · Mar 30, 2015

Rob Roy said:
So you think using force against a person that remains on their property and would prefer not to interact with you is okay?

Why is that?

Of course, because it's discrimination

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
How would an African American person enjoy equal rights if a shop owner didn't want to serve him based on skin color if it wasn't federally enforced?

There's more than one person involved that have rights. Doesn't any person have a right to not interact with another person if they chose?

Race is irrelevant when it comes to rights, all people have the right not to be forced to interact with somebody don't they?

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Of course, because it's discrimination

Is the person being made to serve somebody else exempt from protection of their right to choose their interactions?

Padawanbater2 · Mar 30, 2015

Rob Roy said:
There's more than one person involved that have rights. Doesn't any person have a right to not interact with another person if they chose?

Race is irrelevant when it comes to rights, all people have the right not to be forced to interact with somebody don't they?

Not if it's based on discrimination

Padawanbater2 · Mar 30, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Is the person being made to serve somebody else exempt from protection of their right to choose their interactions?

They have every right to choose their interactions if those choices don't result in discrimination

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Not if it's based on discrimination

Isn't the person forcing the interaction, lessening the rights of the other person?

If a person doesn't want to interact with you, do you make them interact with you?

Padawanbater2 · Mar 30, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Isn't the person forcing the interaction, lessening the rights of the other person?

If a person doesn't want to interact with you, do you make them interact with you?

People don't have the right to discriminate, the right against discrimination is fundamental to our society

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
They have every right to choose their interactions if those choices don't result in discrimination

So you approve of initiating force against a person remaining on their property that would prefer not to interact with you?

Why is the reason they prefer not to interact relevant? Shouldn't people be free to interact on a consensual basis without others making their choices for them?

In forced segregation and forced integration, the problem is the force used. Using force in a non defensive way is never the answer.

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
People don't have the right to discriminate, the right against discrimination is fundamental to our society

Really? So you are okay with an uninvolved third party making choices about how two individuals will interact? How does that protect the freedom of both individuals to chose their own path?

A society that uses force to make people associate or prevent those that wish to associate doesn't seem based in consent does it?

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
They have every right to choose their interactions if those choices don't result in discrimination

Do you oppose slavery? I do. All people should be free shouldn't they?

It’s the involuntary nature of the servitude that makes it slavery. Forcing someone to bake you a cake against her will is no different, even if you offer to pay for it.

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

see4 said:
I suspect Rob drinks himself to sleep every night wishing he had another son that he could Klan with. I also suspect that because he despises his son so much that he is angry at the world for being slightly better today than it was even 10 years ago, when his racist hate filled tendencies were more tolerated.

Padawanbater2 · Mar 30, 2015

Rob Roy said:
So you approve of initiating force against a person remaining on their property that would prefer not to interact with you?

Of course, because it's discrimination

Rob Roy said:
Why is the reason they prefer not to interact relevant? Shouldn't people be free to interact on a consensual basis without others making their choices for them?

The reason is relevant because it results in discrimination. If someone doesn't want to interact with me because I'm being an asshole, that's perfectly OK, if someone doesn't want to interact with me because I have white skin, that's discrimination and that's not OK

Not if their choices result in discrimination

Rob Roy said:
Really? So you are okay with an uninvolved third party making choices about how two individuals will interact? How does that protect the freedom of both individuals to chose their own path?

The government is not "an uninvolved third party". The civil rights act of 1964 guarantees the protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The gov.'s responsibility is enforcing the law.

That protects one parties freedom to not be discriminated against, like I said before, nobody has the right to discriminate against people based on what I listed

Rob Roy · Mar 30, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Of course, because it's discrimination

The reason is relevant because it results in discrimination. If someone doesn't want to interact with me because I'm being an asshole, that's perfectly OK, if someone doesn't want to interact with me because I have white skin, that's discrimination and that's not OK

Not if their choices result in discrimination

The government is not "an uninvolved third party". The civil rights act of 1964 guarantees the protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The gov.'s responsibility is enforcing the law.

That protects one parties freedom to not be discriminated against, like I said before, nobody has the right to discriminate against people based on what I listed

Who has the right to force an unwilling person to serve them?

UncleBuck · Mar 30, 2015

deadgro said:
I don't vote based on party.

so based on your own stupidity then?

indiana

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads