Michael Brown

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If I were to be honest I'd say that I care about Glenzig, Rellapse and even Alarti/Tiggles' opinion of me more than I care about yours you drugged up hippy.


Hate the sin not the sinner. This translates to Hate the group not the individuals within the group (hey look, whitey and cops fit that description... So does Hate the religion not the individual practitioners. Hate the race, not individuals of the race. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only thing this post explains is that you have no ability to form a reasonable coherent thought.

[Aviann]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Massive retardism.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only thing this post explains is that you have no ability to form a reasonable coherent thought.

Yeahok.gif

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

It's not fun when your opponents can't even form coherent arguments. Pick it up slackers.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Notice that sexual orientation is NOT listed as a protected class of the civil rights act. You repeatedly mention that this is "illegal" without giving any citation. It is NOT illegal in the vast majority of the U.S., and the laws in Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington are arguably (quite strongly) unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

I still don't really know what you're talking about with compelled speech ill admit, you have to be more clear.

Speech is not just what comes out of your mouth. It's what you do, it's the dollars you spend, it's the actions you take, the votes you cast, and the things you do NOT say or do. Compelled speech is where the government forces an individual to engage in a form of speech. Baking a cake for a celebration is speech, and if you find that celebration objectionable yet are forced to "speak in support" of it, that is compelled speech.

This isn't about "white Christians" as you put it. (Put the race card away please.) it's about the precedent that it sets. Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

Spent dollars are speech, voting is speech, and NOT donating to a particular cause is speech. The policies you're cheering on would allow the government to tell you what to do with your dollars, votes, and anything else.

That is incredibly chilling.

[Aviann]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not fun when your opponents can't even form coherent arguments. Pick it up slackers.

Maybe if someone makes a comparison with a traumatic moment in your life, you will better understand the point being made... Here we go.

Remember in high school when nobody talked to you and you sat in the corner alone for lunch everyday?

Well it's probably because you are a wannabe bronie, you wear dresses, and you are straight up fucking weird. Also in most cases, even if you are defending equality, you still shit up your posts with a lack of respect and a know-it-all attitude.

Why would anyone want to hold conversation or argument with you for longer than a page or two, like, ever? lol

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Notice that sexual orientation is NOT listed as a protected class of the civil rights act. You repeatedly mention that this is "illegal" without giving any citation. It is NOT illegal in the vast majority of the U.S., and the laws in Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington are arguably (quite strongly) unconstitutional.



Speech is not just what comes out of your mouth. It's what you do, it's the dollars you spend, it's the actions you take, the votes you cast, and the things you do NOT say or do. Compelled speech is where the government forces an individual to engage in a form of speech. Baking a cake for a celebration is speech, and if you find that celebration objectionable yet are forced to "speak in support" of it, that is compelled speech.

This isn't about "white Christians" as you put it. (Put the race card away please.) it's about the precedent that it sets. Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

Spent dollars are speech, voting is speech, and NOT donating to a particular cause is speech. The policies you're cheering on would allow the government to tell you what to do with your dollars, votes, and anything else.

That is incredibly chilling.

I'm sure someone said the same thig about being forces to allow blacks to use the same bathrooms as whites 40 years ago.

Basically your just trying to imagine a world where civil rights is not constantly moving forward for a free and equal place for all people.

Hate to break it to you but your just an old man in a new world.

In other words you trippin if you think that any of that is negative. if your looking for chilling shit look to the police department in ferguson. You got a lot worse shit happening there.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

But they already do that with race. You literally have to bake that cake for a black, even if you don't want to. Forcing them to bake that cake for a homo isn't setting some wild new precedent, it's just adding a protected class to a precedent that already exists.

Just face it Frieza, you're going to have to live in a world where we treat homos like human beings.

[capco]

Can we just talk about cakes from now on?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm sure someone said the same thig about being forces to allow blacks to use the same bathrooms as whites 40 years ago.

Basically your just trying to imagine a world where civil rights is not constantly moving forward for a free and equal place for all people.

Hate to break it to you but your just an old man in a new world.

In other words you trippin if you think that any of that is negative. if your looking for chilling shit look to the police department in ferguson. You got a lot worse shit happening there.

You are still completely missing the point. This is not about civil rights for gays, or any other group. This is about freedom of association. The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Being a specific color is not equivalent to practicing a specific action. They are entirely different. Your continued attempts to compare the two are growing old. They are not the same.

I cannot help but notice you have completely ignored the idea of compelled speech when I explained it to you. I take it by your omission, which is a form of speech, that you are telling me that you are fine with the government telling people how to vote, or which charities they should donate to, or which businesses they should not shop at? If this sounds dystopian that's because it is. You are literally defining a police state.

You're okay with it, and that scares the hell out of me.