Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Mississippi Passes Anti-Gay Discrimination Law" video.

  1. +Garrett Ydoom Sure, I would support your right to do that.
    1
  2. +kristabella222 What right is being denied here? You don't have a right to other people's services.
    1
  3. +Kyrie Irving I agree. Private businesses are not the law, government is.
    1
  4. +kristabella222 Exactly
    1
  5. +Kyrie Irving Where? Please point it out.
    1
  6. +Zidneya I will support your right to run such a business.
    1
  7. This law has existed for around 240 years, it is called the 1st amendment. We should allow private businesses to discriminate. Force integration is just as bad as forced segregation. People discriminate all the time, get over it.
    1
  8. +MAnnaconduit1 "Sorry the right to deny other people rights has never been an a legal thing," What right is being denied here? Let us start there.
    1
  9. +MAnnaconduit1 This does not violate church and state. If it does please explain how. " religious rights do not allow you to infringe upon others rights," What rights are being infringed? Please explain. "(this law allows religious criteria to be used to dictate dress and behavioral codes at work" Like I have to adhere to a dress code at work? I don't see a difference.
    1
  10. +Christian Knuchel Name me one right that straight people have an gays don't.
    1
  11. +AlmostSober What do you do for a living? Can I use your services for free since you use public roads, utilities and so on?
    1
  12. +badnewsBH If a business wants to discriminate against people then that is their lost. It is no different than if a person discriminates going to a gay bar.
    1
  13. +Riley Jarvis Everyone uses services contributed by the taxpayer.....so what's your point?
    1
  14. +jjovereats Jim Crow Laws was the government forcing segregation, this is not happening here.
    1
  15. +Riley Jarvis I know, but my point is that some people refuse to go to a bar if it is a gay bar. And if a gay bar did discriminate against gay people then I would support their right to do so.
    1
  16. +Riley Jarvis Jim Crow Laws were mandated by the government. You had to had a white only drinking fountain or forced black people to move to the back of the bus.
    1
  17. +Riley Jarvis You can get fired for a lot of things.
    1
  18. +Shane Young It is the same if someone discriminates against a bar just because it is a gay bar. That bar is now losing money just because it wants to attract a certain clientele. "but that would probably be the only time in that persons life that that would ever happen." It doesn't matter if it happens one time or many times, we don't create laws forcing integration. Your hypothetical situation doesn't really fly. What if their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere? What if the have a heart attack? Do we fly out a doctor to give them care against their will? You can do this with anything. What if they go to a gas station and they have no diesel and their vehicle runs on diesel? How far are you willing to go with these hypothetical?
    1
  19. +Shane Young I am not changing the subject, you are throwing out a radical hypothetical so I am as well. Heck, why not have gas station on every corner just in case shit happens? How far do you want to go with these laws to prevent problems? I agree discrimination is not right, but neither is forcing people to live at your standards. How would you feel if there was a law that forced people to go to gay bars just to give them more business?
    1
  20. +Shane Young I am not changing the subject. You are throwing out a radical hypothetical. You are supporting creating a law that would force people to go against their belief based off of something that might happen. You can do that with anything. I feel that if a business discriminates for asinine reasons is not smart, but I would support their right to do so. Going off of your hypothetical any business that is that isolated would not turn down business. If they did then they would possibly turning down their only customer that week. Not smart. And you are forcing people to live by your standards.
    1
  21. +Shane Young "A law forcing people to go to gay bars is not the same as saying that if you own a business in the U.S" It very much is. Say a person tries to open a gay bar in the south and people don't go there due to them hating gays. The business now goes under....then what?
    1
  22. +Shane Young The CRA of 1964 was pointless in some ways due to the 14th amendment, and in other ways unconstitutional. You have to understand that in the 60s you had Jim Crow Laws that told businesses they had to discriminate. That is government discriminating which violates the 14th amendment. There is a difference in what is happening now.
    1
  23. +Shane Young Just because you decided to open a business does not mean you lose your rights.
    1
  24. +Shane Young Well it depends.
    1
  25. +Hal Jordan It depends.
    1
  26. +robinsss I said it depends. If you are a business that applies for a business license then we have a slightly different discussion. If you want to have that discussion we can, but we are still at the beginning in how no one has a right to anyone's services.
    1
  27. +Hal Jordan it does depend on what comes with a business license if you decide to run your business that way. You can run a private business, and you can also run a business with a license. If you do the latter then there are benefits and restrictions. If you want to have that discussion we can. Point is that we are talking about how you don't have a right to anyone's services. So if you are denied service from a business you are not having your rights violated.
    1
  28. +robinsss You can't do that even if you are not a business owner.......so what's your point?
    1
  29. +robinsss The example you gave relates to everyone, not just businesses
    1
  30. +Hal Jordan "Businesses are beholden to federal laws" They shouldn't be, it violates the constitution. "Being a business does not give you the ability to trump over the law." When a law is unconstitutional then it should not exist.
    1
  31. +Riley Jarvis "You seem to forget the difference between a civilization and anarchy. " Why do you think that? "The reason we have a government is to protect the freedom and safety of americans" 1. Not at the expense of others 2. There are limitations on what the government can and cannot do to prevent tyranny "There is a fallacious argument that there is no need for regulation due to the "invisible hand" eventually moving the markets towards sustainable and ethical practices." I never suggested that I should not have regulations. You have to realize that we have to follow the constitution as well. "The reason I call it fallacious is because it's clearly not effective, in the victorian era people worked 12 hour days with no health insurance or representation, and often were injured on the job, they did the work because the alternative was starvation" During that time economic growth was large and the society improved a lot. What you said is pretty much a lie. "A businesses right to dictate it's own practices is overridden the moment those rights come at the expense of an employee" You don't have a right to a job "or an individual not being able to receive necessary services. " You don't have a right to someone's goods and services.
    1
  32. +Hal Jordan The federal government does not have the ability to create such laws. The constitution outlines what the federal government is allowed to do, everything else is left up to the states via the 10th amendment. Thus that federal law is unconstitutional. It is designed that way to prevent tyranny. Imagine if officials that thought like those in Mississippi were in charge at the federal level. Now you would have to follow their law. I bet you would cry foul and say the fed. should not act like that.
    1
  33. +Riley Jarvis "what do you think I meant with the gas station example, a situation that could and has happened before" You want to take a gun, hold it to the gas station attendant's head and say "go against your belief or die". That is exactly what you are saying. " The Victorian era saw economic growth due technology that allowed for industry and agriculture to operate multitudes, but the business practices notoriously obliterated all competition to the point of national monopoly and employed child labor in dangerous occupations like forging and butchering" Was their child labor? Yes. Was their dangerous working conditions? Yes. But you have to understand that during that time the country and economy was developing. You are comparing those standards to today's standards. You can't do that. We can remove all child labor laws today and children won't be working due to more children living with their parents longer and going to school longer. We live in a more advanced age today than 150+ years ago. "Also, the constitution, have you read it? " Yes, one of my jobs requires me to fully understand it. "It calls black people 3/5ths of a person," Which was changed through the constitution. "and on top of that the concepts you are specifically referring to have nothing to do with descrimatory business practices, " Not listed in the constitution thus it is a state issue
    1
  34. +Hal Jordan The SC has been wrong before. Look up Kelo vs City of New London
    1
  35. +Riley Jarvis I would support PayPal's actions. They can run their business that way if they want.
    1
  36. +Hal Jordan The SC has been wrong in rulings before. Look up Kelo vs. City of New London. Also I point towards the 14th amendment to show limitations on what the states can do. The constitutional is pure black and white to me.
    1
  37. +Hal Jordan I like how on the Rick Scott video you did not respond when I showed how Bernie Sanders acts when he is confronted with someone who is immature and rude. And yes, the constitution is pure black and white.
    1
  38. +Above AverageJoe I don't have a problem either. People who have a problem with this law either 1. Don't understand the 1st amendment 2. Support forced integration which is just as bad as forced segregation or some both.
    1