Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:That's what he's saying. To paraphrase flsprtsgod, the ability to preserve prejudicial activities has long been the primary desire of the right. Always has been, always will be.


What do you think is meant by "states rights"? Or "school choice"?

Sucks when people just won't do what you want, huh?

Quote:Sucks when people just won't do what you want, huh?

 

Quote:We really care where people take a dump?

People care about the orientation of people getting married.

Quote:People care about the orientation of people getting married.

 

Neither Adam nor Steve squat.

 

They have these:

 



 

It's science.

Quote:People care about the orientation of people getting married.

Kinda crazy to me.


If you're not bothering me, you do whatever you want. Except drop a deuce in the urinal. Don't do that. Marry who ya want and pee where you want.

Being "transgender" is a mental issue.  There is also no such thing as "transgender rights".

Quote:It's quite simple.

 

Even a fake scientist should be able to figure it out.

 

If not...

 

You go where your plumbing dictates.

 

Hoses go boys, must-squatters go girls.

 

Do you squat to pee, or just act like it?

 

Buck Angel squats. Are you comfortable with your female loved ones sharing bathroom facilities with...him?

 

Quote:Being "transgender" is a mental issue. There is also no such thing as "transgender rights".

Assuming it's a mental issue do people with such illnesses have rights in your opinion?

Quote:Assuming it's a mental issue do people with such illnesses have rights in your opinion?

 

Yes, they have the same rights as any other individual.  There is no such thing as a collective right.  If you need a collective then it isn't a right. 

Quote:Not trying to start a flame war here, but I am curious about the way you phrased your opinion. Are you saying that if you want to say 'whites only' in your business restroom that doing so is outside the realm of government involvement?

Yes it is, equally access on public property I fully endorse. If it's private propety that's different.


That said we've had laws passed that already compromise private property laws right or wrong it's law. I argue and believe that private property owners have the right to practice any form of discrimination they want, doesn't mean I support it. Once you start down the path of compromising private property everything else begins to erode. The protection of private property should supercede everything else.

Quote:That's what he's saying. To paraphrase flsprtsgod, the ability to preserve prejudicial activities has long been the primary desire of the right. Always has been, always will be.


What do you think is meant by "states rights"? Or "school choice"?

Prejudice no matter how ugly isn't illegal, you can't legislate morality without compromising the individual right to property and association.

Quote:Prejudice no matter how ugly isn't illegal, you can't legislate morality without compromising the individual right to property and association.

 

You can certainly legislate morality. That's what legislation is all about. Thou shall not kill and all that.

 

You fail to distinguish between private property and using that property for commerce. Once you say you are open for business you're open for everyone. At least in America.

Quote:Assuming it's a mental issue do people with such illnesses have rights in your opinion?

I am a man, I have the right to use the publicly available restroom that matches what I am. Transgenders have the same right to use the correct restroom.

 

Self Identifying as a woman does not make you one the same way sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. 

Quote:You can certainly legislate morality. That's what legislation is all about. Thou shall not kill and all that.


You fail to distinguish between private property and using that property for commerce. Once you say you are open for business you're open for everyone. At least in America.

Not at all otherwise you wouldn't have member exclusive clubs. As the law reads now yes you can not operate a business and discriminate based on religion color gender or ethnicity I'm not denying that. That however doesn't mean every category of minority is protected in the same manor. There's no federal legislation that prohibits a business from dictating access based on gender roles so long as they provide equal access to both genders. I can't have a male only bathroom and not offer a female only bathroom and vice versa.


Now I argue that the use of my private property shouldn't change my protection of private property. On what grounds should the state be able to dictate how private property is used by a private business. I'd argue so long as physical harm or someone else's property is not damaged individuals and associations must be allowed to use their private property however they want. If some hillbilly wants a whites only laundry mat let the free market run him out of business when a smarter entrapanure opens an inclusive laundry mat down the road.


Just because property is used for commerce we should force owners to forfeit their property rights.


Again property rights is where all other rights evolve from without you just have the state making up reasons for legislation at whim, that's how we ended up with the modern day police state.

Quote:You can certainly legislate morality. That's what legislation is all about. Thou shall not kill and all that.


You fail to distinguish between private property and using that property for commerce. Once you say you are open for business you're open for everyone. At least in America.

Not at all otherwise you wouldn't have member exclusive clubs. As the law reads now yes you can not operate a business and discriminate based on religion color gender or ethnicity I'm not denying that. That however doesn't mean every category of minority is protected in the same manor. There's no federal legislation that prohibits a business from dictating access based on gender roles so long as they provide equal access to both genders. I can't have a male only bathroom and not offer a female only bathroom and vice versa.


Now I argue that the use of my private property shouldn't change my protection of private property. On what grounds should the state be able to dictate how private property is used by a private business. I'd argue so long as physical harm or someone else's property is not damaged individuals and associations must be allowed to use their private property however they want. If some hillbilly wants a whites only laundry mat let the free market run him out of business when a smarter entrapanure opens an inclusive laundry mat down the road.


Just because property is used for commerce we should force owners to forfeit their property rights.


Again property rights is where all other rights evolve from without you just have the state making up reasons for legislation at whim, that's how we ended up with the modern day police state.

Quote:I am a man, I have the right to use the publicly available restroom that matches what I am. Transgenders have the same right to use the correct restroom.



Self Identifying as a woman does not make you one the same way sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

When did you decide to gender identify as a man?

Quote:Not at all otherwise you wouldn't have member exclusive clubs. As the law reads now yes you can not operate a business and discriminate based on religion color gender or ethnicity I'm not denying that. That however doesn't mean every category of minority is protected in the same manor. There's no federal legislation that prohibits a business from dictating access based on gender roles so long as they provide equal access to both genders. I can't have a male only bathroom and not offer a female only bathroom and vice versa.


Now I argue that the use of my private property shouldn't change my protection of private property. On what grounds should the state be able to dictate how private property is used by a private business. I'd argue so long as physical harm or someone else's property is not damaged individuals and associations must be allowed to use their private property however they want. If some hillbilly wants a whites only laundry mat let the free market run him out of business when a smarter entrapanure opens an inclusive laundry mat down the road.


Just because property is used for commerce we should force owners to forfeit their property rights.


Again property rights is where all other rights evolve from without you just have the state making up reasons for legislation at whim, that's how we ended up with the modern day police state.

There are two sexes. There are multiple genders.

Quote:There are two sexes. There are multiple genders.

And that changes what about my statement? I'm not interested in debating perception neither of us is going to change our minds about what classifies a gender or sex ect...


My only point in the discussion is simple property rights have to be preserved against further erosion or we risk a state powerful enough to strip anyone of all rights for any miniscule reason. We're already dangerously close to that point.

Quote:You can certainly legislate morality. That's what legislation is all about. Thou shall not kill and all that.

 

You fail to distinguish between private property and using that property for commerce. Once you say you are open for business you're open for everyone. At least in America.

 

There should be no such distinction, commercial property is not public property.

Quote:When did you decide to gender identify as a man?

 

 

I'm an M1 Abrams main battle tank. You can tell by the size of my cannon.