Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Indiana Gov: Our Anti-Gay Law Isn't Anti-Gay!" video.

The Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. You can't force integration. Using government force to force integration is just as bad and using government to force segregation. Human sacrifice is a poor example. Everyone is protected from murder equally, but not everyone is protected by discrimination. I can choose to discriminate against a business ran by Christians, or discriminate against a religion and not go to church or discriminate against black people and not date one and so on.
1
Owen Slaughter Jim Crow laws violates the 14th amendment. Governments can't discrimination, private individuals can.
1
Owen Slaughter Jim Crow Laws was using government force to discriminate. This bill allows for property rights and religious rights. The 14th amendment prevents governments, not individuals from discriminating.
1
Owen Slaughter The state would force this law based on the 1st amendment (religious rights) and 5th amendment (property rights). The 14th amendment is to see that the law is enforce equally. A gay person can start a business and discriminate against Christians just as much as Christians can discriminate against gays. It would be a problem if gays were not allowed to discriminate against Christians. All that part of the 14th amendment does is see to it that everyone is seen as equals in the eyes of the law.
1
Owen Slaughter The 14th amendment is to prevent the government from discriminating, never individuals and people.Let us look at Reed vs. Reed. That case supported the 14th amendment because another court ruled in favor of a man simply because he was a man, government discriminated there. Brown vs. Board was a government run school discriminating. In Roe vs. Wade it is the issue of government violating right of privacy and personal liberty. The issue with businesses is that the owners have a right to privacy and liberty as well. Starting a business should not mean you give up your rights unless the local society gives something back in return (as in tax breaks for example, or free advertisement via public land). But in the end the 14th amendment is preventing government from discriminating.
1
Arthur Fuksayk No, what I support is if Christians are allowed to discriminate in their business then so can gays if they started a business. My wording was a bit off I know but that is what I met.
1
Arthur Fuksayk I am not saying discrimination is a good thing, what I support and what I feel is a good thing is keeping our rights. The Civil Rights Act violated the 10th amendment. You are taking away people's rights to "protect" a certain group. You are taking away rights for "protection". That leads to bigger problems beyond discrimination. We can solve discrimination in this country without losing our rights. That is my approach, your approach along with others is removing rights and using government to force others to think like you.
1
Arthur Fuksayk It did violate the 10th amendment. In 1875 when we followed the constitution more it was deemed unconstitutional, it still is. The problem is that we don't follow the constitution much anymore. Take the FCC for example, or the NSA, or Kelo vs. New City of London. All violates the constitution.
1
Arthur Fuksayk If you support taking away rights for "protection" then why not get rid of the 1st amendment? Free speech has raised up masses to push for violence or radicals. The story of Slender Man has led to violence, we should ban freedom of press. Why not ban the 4th amendment and allow the government to spy on us and randomly check our homes, that would have stopped the movie theater shooting. How far are you willing to go in taking away our rights for "protection"? The issue here is that you are setting arbitrary standards and with that an oppressive government can go to the extreme and has. We have limits though and they are in place in the constitution. As I said, we can solve discrimination without taking away our rights.
1
Arthur Fuksayk The other issue is that you support a government with little limitations, it can pick favorites. that means those with resources (as in money) can buy out the federal government and create laws in their favor. That is why we need limitations on it and need to protect our rights over "protection" from the government.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Where did I ever say I support discrimination of homosexuals by Christians? What I said is that I support rights and freedom and limitations on government. I have answered that question. Now answer mine, why do you support an oppressive government to "protect" you? Why do you also support discrimination of religion (as in removing religious freedom for "protection")?
1
Arthur Fuksayk Well you are using a strawman yourself. I answered that question. I will do so in a different way. You discriminate all the time. Do you go to church? I doubt it, that means you discriminate against a religion. Should we force you to attedn church? Have you written a bad review to a business? If you did you just discriminated and harm that business and their lives, should we ban free speech? I don't support discrimination, I support the idea of freedom and rights and not having the government take them away to "protect" certain groups in an unequal way. If this bill is not passed then we should force you to shop at businesses that are ran by christians, because if you don't then you are clearly discriminating and we must stop that and protect those businesses. That would be equal.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Also, businesses are leaving the state because of that law, are you going to stop them from discriminating against the people of Indiana and their laws? Are you going to "protect" that state and those people? Or are you only concerned with protecting gays?
1
Arthur Fuksayk Ok, so you support a law that discriminates against the state of Indiana, I get you, you bigot. Also the 1st amendment protects christians like it protects all religion equally.
1
Arthur Fuksayk You can ask that question all you want, I answered it at least twice already. What allows people, bigots like you, to discriminate against a state are rights and freedoms. It is alright for you to discriminate against a state but when a religious person wants to do it to a gay person then all hell breaks loose. What is sad is that we shouldn't be having a law like this created due to the first amendment but we do.
1
Arthur Fuksayk I am not happy seeing discrimination, I told you that, this is the 3rd time now. How do you discriminate against a state? By not going there, not establishing residence, not doing business there, that is how. No different then when you choose to discriminate by not attending church, or shop at a certain business, or not date certain people, etc. It isn't a law, it is called freedom and rights. You have the right to pursue happiness, you have the right to your property and religious practice and speech and so on. By discriminating against a state you are discriminating against the individual people live there just like someone can discriminate against gays.
1
Arthur Fuksayk If I created a law that required you to shop at Hobby Lobby because if you don't you would be discriminating against their business, or required you to date gay people because if you don't you will be discriminating against gays would you support that? Discrimination happens all the time, you arbitrarily pick one incident and focus on that, I realize that we need to protect rights and freedoms in this country and focus on that. My method is not arbitrary, yours is. Unless you pass laws to ban all forms of discrimination you are being a hypocrite or a opportunist, or lack understanding how our country was designed and how it should be ran.
1
Owen Slaughter Jim Crow laws is using government force to discriminate, this law just protects the 1st and 5th amendments. No one has a right to your services or property. That is what I am focusing on. If a business wants to kick out an unmarried couple that should be their right, and the consumers can choose to go elsewhere and use free speech to give a bad review on that business which is discriminating against them. Basically the responses I am getting is that the customers can discriminate, but as soon as you open a business you are not allowed to discriminate. People are arbitrarily picking what forms of discriminations are legal and what isn't. That is similar to saying what forms of free speech are legal and what isn't.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Ok, those people are discriminating against gays, not individuals. I don't like seeing discrimination, I also don't like seeing dumb people as in Alex Jones or Pat Robertson or Kyle say dumb things, but I support free speech more. I support rights and freedom more, that is the issue. Do you support murder? I bet not. If we ban the 4th amendment and spied in on every home 24/7 that movie theater shooting would have been stopped. So why not ban the 4th amendment? People do thing I don't agree with, I am not going to use government force to remove rights to stop them. We have ways to solve these problems without taking away our rights. If your method is taking away rights then might as well start attacking other rights as well.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Businesses are ran by individuals. Basically you are saying we should ban certain forms of discriminations. Gays are not individuals. Individuals can be gay but gays, just like the people of Indiana, are a collection of people. The CRA of 1964 violates the 10th amendment. You support it on emotions where I don't because I understand we need limitations on governments just as much we need limitations on individuals. We can have a better method to do it, we limit or even stop discrimination without removing our rights just like we can with murder or poverty or other problems. Or we can just live completley dependent upon the government, your choice.
1
Owen Slaughter Slaves were forced to work and were treated as property. With Jim Crow Laws you had separate but equal which violates the 14th amendment and is the government discriminating. You do know that in some areas we are more segragated now then in the past? Are you going to force those individuals to leave their homes and live elsewhere to force integration? For example, are you going to force white families to send their children to mostly black schools?
1
Owen Slaughter The other person said that people from Indiana are not individuals, so with what he said gays are not individuals. If you want to look at it that way they are a collection of people of different colors, shapes, interest, abilities, etc. just like people from Indiana. So based on the other person responding they are not individuals.
1
Arthur Fuksayk You are taking away the 1st and 5th amendment rights, at the federal level the 10th. You are also taking away the right to pursue happiness.
1
Arthur Fuksayk So you support stopping one form of discrimination but not others? In some ways we are more segragated now then in the past. So are you going to force white families to send their children farther away to schools to a school that is mostly black? Or what about people who discriminate against who they date? The issue with murder is that all murder is illegal and is equally enforced on everyone, discrimination isn't. Unless you eliminate all forms of discrimination then you can't do it. The only way you can do it is if you, by taking rights away from say a business (an individual) offers something in return to benefit them as in a tax break for example. Until then you are being oppressive.
1
Arthur Fuksayk So you support arbitrarily stopping certain forms of discrimination, that is unequal not to mention that the CRA of 1964 violates the 10th amendment. You are saying "don't discriminate in this way, but you can in that way", and based on what? The school example isn't stupid, we are seeing more segregation now then in the past. Whites are choosing to go to mostly white schools, blacks mostly black. Now there is an economic divide so there is that form of discrimination as well, poor kids go to poor schools and rich go to rich. Why not intermix them? So you support any law the government just creates? You support the CRA of 1964 just because the government says so? Ok, now I see why you think the way you do, it is because you don't think. I am not arguing against the law, I am arguing against the idea of the law and if it is constitutional or not. You are simply bowing down to a law just because the government created it. You know, separate but equal use to be legal, you would have been a person to support that because there were laws that made it that way. Based on your definition gays are not individuals, but a business owner is.
1
Arthur Fuksayk I don't see people on the streets protesting against the NSA or FCC or Kelo vs. New City of London or other laws and rulings that are unconstitutional. I said that before, we are not following the constitution. I am not saying there is a "white school" and "black school", but there are schools that are mainly attended by whites and blacks. As I said, there is more segregation today then in the past in several ways, are you going to stop that? "Depends on the law...be specific. I support a law that stops one person discriminating another for irrational reasons. You clearly feel you can discriminate who you want in all walks of life, and you're projecting that bigotry onto me."No, you just arbitrarily pick laws that make you feel good. At the same time you discriminate all the time as well. You are discriminating against someone's religious beliefs for irrational reasons. You are against some forms of discrimination but not others. That is like being against some forms of murder but not others.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Here is the situation. I don't support discrimination, but I support people's rights to pursue happiness and to discriminate if they want too. I don't support what Pat Robertson or Bill Maher says either, but I support their freedom of speech more so I will be against any law that will silence them. Just like discrimination, I am against any law that bans it. I am also against any law that violates the 10th amendment such as the CRA. I have told you that there are several laws and policies that have violated the constitution, there are ignorant people like that don't care. Also, your support of wanting to stop certain forms of discrimination but not others exactly the same as supporting separate but equal of support certain forms of free speech. The constitution was designed to stop fascists like yourself. I side with individual rights and freedom, you side with fascism.
1
Owen Slaughter "Oh yeah that Civil Rights Act of 1964 is full of bullshit. I mean why should I protect the rights of people that are different?" What rights are you protecting? The right to not have their feelings hurt? then why not ban freedom of speech? When a movie makes fun of fat people should that be ban? I mean that hurts the feelings of fat people. I love how you also us the phrase "common sense", people felt it was "common sense" to separate black from whites as well.
1
Owen Slaughter You may say it is all a laugh but it is true. We have schools with only a handful of white people but have mainly black kids. That is being very segregated. Read the book The Shame of the Nation. Also, the CRA does violate the 10th amendment, where in the constitution does it say the federal government can stop businesses from discriminating? Now they can enforce the 14th amendment, but that doesn't require a law, just enforcement of an amendment.
1
Owen Slaughter What this boils down to is that I don't support discrimination, what I do support are people's rights and freedom to pursue happiness, practice religion, right to property, and if needed discriminate. We all discriminate in some way. It is the same as I don't support what Pat Robertson and Bill Maher says on the air, but I support their freedom of speech so I will never create a law that silences them. Just like I am against a law that arbitrarily stops certain forms of discrimination. When you do that, when you go down the path of creating certain laws to stop certain things you don't agree with so you end up taking rights away then you go down the path of an oppressive government. You may feel like I am an idiot but I have reason and the constitution for my support, you and that other fool just have emotions.
1
Owen Slaughter If a state recognizes marriage then it has too, via the 14th amendment, recognize gay marriage. The government can't discriminate, people can though. That is the difference. Just like in free speech, the government can't silence people but a private business, say a broadcasting company, can silence people by refusing to air them on their shows.
1
Arthur Fuksayk I can add another unconstitutional law no one is complaining about, the restrictions on cigarette ads. That violates the 1st amendment, but people (wrongly) feel that cigarette companies don't deserve their first amendment right and we need to "protect" ourselves from the evil companies with help of the government.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Or what about DUI checkpoints, that violates the 4th amendment. But people don't care becuase it is the government keeping us "safe". Well, why not mandatory breathalyzers in cars to prevent those who have been drinking from even starting the car? You see, just because people are not in uproar over a law doesn't mean it is constitutional. Seriously, read up on some history.
1
Owen Slaughter "Hi, I'm Owen Slaughter and understand the constitution or the history of this country at all, I just like to create laws out of emotions and when someone of actual reason and intelligence comes along and disagrees with me I mock them. I am just plain stupid." Two people can act like children in this.
1
Owen Slaughter The 1st amendment means I can't use force of government to force my religion on you. It also protects people from the government in practicing their religon. A business discriminating on the basis of religion is not forcing their religion on people, you can always go to another business. This is where you don't understand the 1st amendmnet. It is the exact same as in if a radio station doesn't want to air your commercial, they can do that because the 1st amendment protects your freedom of speech from the government not from private individuals and businesses.
1
Owen Slaughter So to be clear I will say it again, no one is forcing their religion on anyone, you can go to another business. You should be allowed to force others out of your business also because of the 5th amendment. Not allowing a business owner to discriminate based on their religious beliefs is not allowing them to practice their religion which violates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" the part "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The only way you can do that is if you offer something back in return, equally to all business such as a tax break or free public advertisement. But in the end no one is forcing their religion on anyone.
1
Owen Slaughter What is a "very bad thing". This is your problem, you are making a decision on emotions and what you consider to be "bad" which is arbitrary. I feel that removing freedom and liberty if bad. This is why we have a constitution to prevent these things and the constituiton is on my side. We need limitations on the government. Also, consider this by Franklin”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
1
Arthur Fuksayk Are you really this thick? Here is the difference between you and me. If I knew a buisness discriminated I would refuse to go there because I don't support their actions. What I won't do is use government force to stop them, that is what you would do. My way allows us to keep our freedom and liberties, your way sacrafices those for "safety". As in what Franklin said we don't want that”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
1
Arthur Fuksayk Pursuit of happiness means that the government can't take it away. You are not guaranteed happiness, you have the right to pursue it. That is the major difference. The CRA violates the 10th amendment like it did in 1875 when we followed the constitution more. Just admit that you support fascism, you want everyone to act like you.
1
Arthur Fuksayk "If the CRA of 1964 violates the 10th amendment, why is it only you are saying it does? Ever thought that you're the lone moronic voice for a reason?" I am not the only one who says it. Several say the same thing about the banning of tobacco advertisement and the FCC. As I said, we are becoming a society that rather sacrifice liberty for "safety". Also you have the right to pursue happiness, you are not guaranteed it. So if I walk into a book store and they don't have a copy of a book I want, did that business just refuse my right to pursue happiness? Should the government force them to sell that book? Or if a girl doesn't date me, should that be illegal? I am not happy for not getting my book and not getting the date I want. There is a difference between be able to pursue happiness and be guaranteed it. That is why the government can't discriminate but individuals can, learn the difference.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Stopping discrimination with force of the government is fascism.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Fascism ": a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government: very harsh control or authority"
1
Arthur Fuksayk It isn't a red herring, you said so yourself that the CRA is not constitution because no one is in the streets saying anything, but I just pointed out other examples that are clearly unconstitutional that no one is saying anything about either. So your point is null. Just type in "civil rights act of 1964 unconstitutional" in google, you will find several articles. It isn't just me. "How is discriminating someone classified as "the pursuit of happiness"?" Because I should have the right to live around people or deal with people I want. Why should I be forced to serve someone I disagree with or interact with someone I disagree with? Also, it comes down to the difference of pursuing happiness and being guaranteed it. You said earlier that those being discriminated are being denied their right to pursue happiness, they aren't though. Plus they are not guaranteed happiness. You are changing your tone now since you are clearly beat on that part.
1
Arthur Fuksayk So now you are changing your tone on the pursuit of happiness I see. Also, with the girl and dating example, that girl clearly discriminated against me, is that allowed? Why is that form of discrimination allowed but not others?
1
Arthur Fuksayk "Fuck, the stupid...it hurts....googling something is your rebuttal?" So you refuse to do your own research? You said that I am the only one saying the CRA is unconstitutional, if you google it you will see that I am not the only one. You have just proved you are myopic and ignorant. To be honest I said all I needed to say. You have taken up too much of my time already. As a grad. student and a PhD candidate I have other responsibilities to focus on beyond reading comments from a guy who changes his stories, can't understand the constitution, doesn't know the definition of discrimination, and refuses to do any type of research himself. One thing people are allowed to discriminate still is ignorance. Thankfully that is still around because I know when times are rough I will always have a job and a good lifestyle and you won't, until you pass a fascist law otherwise.
1
Arthur Fuksayk Oh, before I go"Do you think a straight man not wanting to date a homosexual man is discrimination? Of course it fucking isn't. That's how dumb your "arguments" sound." Definition of discrimination"the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing" Answer you own question. A little effort in research doesn't hurt.
1