Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump Admin Wants To Allow 'No LGBTQ' Signs At Businesses" video.

Forced integration is just as bad as forced segregation. I want businesses to post "no gays allowed" up so I know whom not to do business with.
4
Dayne, is your home on a road funded by tax dollars? Would a police come to your home if you called them? Ok, now if some random person came to your home wanting to eat your food and sleep in your bed would you allow them? I assume no as you have that right. However you, like a business, uses public services. So why do you get to discriminate who can and cannot enter your home but a business can't?
3
Dayne, there are arguments on both sides of this and they are both strong. The problem is that if you go too extreme to other side than you are in the wrong. Right now with that cake shop incident the left has gone to far. They are using government to ruin lives of people just because they did not want to serve a gay couple. That is the same as Jim Crow laws.
3
"No it is not...no more than the 13th amendment is considered "going too far" by forcing people to not have slaves." Slaves were treated as property. All that amendment did was make it so they were human. "If someone is a paying customer, is properly dressed and or doesn't cause a disturbance there is no real reason to deny them service... " Why is that up to you? I wouldn't, but not everyone thinks like you or me.
3
Chris Reed, it is still their private business. The federal government has no authority to tell businesses how to operate. Sates can, but the federal government can't. Also, there is a strong argument that a business should be able to refuse to serve people they don't want to, especially if that business is not a necessity. Like a cake shop for example.
3
Jeremy Chase, you pay taxes as well but you have the right to discriminate if you want. So why do you have that right but no businesses?
3
KidLoose, you are right to a degree, and that is state law. I have no problem with states being allowed to do that. However, there are counter arguments. For example, if the good/service that business offer is not a necessity (like healthcare), should they be allowed to discriminate? Look at what happened to the cake shop. Those owner's lives were ruined because a gay couple refused to just go to another store or not have a cake. An issue we have is not we have gone to the other extreme. Before government forced segregation, now it is oppressing the other side which is just as bad.
3
Brian, not necessarily. There is an argument to be made there, but if you want to go that route than maybe your rights should be limited as well.
2
The Constitution protects you from government by limiting it. You do not have a right to other services. You do have a right to refuse to do business with other people though.
2
Chris Reed, while gay people cannot stop being gay, they can hide it by how they act. Just like a business requires you to where a shirt, they don't want a gay person making out with someone of the same sex. Being black is based on your skin tone unless you are Shaun King. There is a difference there. While I agree you can't be consistent, there is an argument to be made there. An example is if a gay couple wanted a cake for a gay wedding as opposed to a wedding.
2
david crago, forcing a business to serve people they do not want to serve is the same as forcing a business to refuse services to others. Jim Crow laws forced discrimination through government, which I disagreed with. But using government to force businesses they don't want to serve is just as bad. Force segregation is just as bad as forced integration.
1
mostliberal, slavery was a law for a long time and that changes. It was legal to kill Mormons in MO for years and that change. Laws can change.
1
"one leads to a more fair decent society" What is "fair and decent"? When a gay couple shuts down a cake shop because they refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, is that "fair and decent"? You are wanting to force your ideas on other people. That is on the same level as Jim Crow laws. "Having open bigotry will never lead to anything good" How so? I can see the actual racists and sexists and condemn them. "this gay couple was asking for a cake something this business was there to supply the public with...they didn't ask the owner to join them in a threesome." That gay couple does not have any right to that cake or that owner's services. So your solution is to shut them down? Again, is that "fair and decent"?
1
"Those cake shop owners should have read the constitution. The government has the right to regulate the economy " The federal government doesn't, states do. And that was a state law. However, that is what it led to. A cake shop was closed down and lives were ruined because a gay couple could not simply walk down to another shop. " no level of government in the usa is allowed to pass or promote discriminatory policies those cake shop owners put the state, local, and federal government in a position where they violate the 14th amendment." Read the Constitution close bud, no government can discriminate. It says nothing about private businesses. "you have no excuse pinko" I do, and many scholars argued this. People discriminate all the time. You do and I do as well. All the 14th amendment does is prevent the government from doing it.
1
Nutcase, the commerce clause is commerce between states, not individual. Again, read the Constitution closer. "Civil rights act of 1964 which was based upon and made an extension of both the commerce clause and the equal protection clause doesn't count then? " The CRA was based on the 14th amendment that government cannot discriminate. "All of them theocrat traitors who want the rule of law replaced by the bible," Are you OK? I feel you are not well mentally. " You have made no real argument" I cited the Constitution.
1
"So commerce is something that cannot be done at all then???" It is, between states, not people. "Who the fuck do you think does commerce you fucking moron? Who do you think makes up the population of a given state?" And states determine commerce between people. There wasn't federal individual income tax before 1913 because the federal government served the states, not the people. "There is no way you can be that fucking stupid pinko" I am not, I am referencing the Constitution. "And due to the commerce clause the government cant allow businesses to discriminate." Not really, those are state laws. Again, commerce between states meaning state governments. "I wish someone would put you away, " Thanks.
1
"Fair and decent society is where bigots can't turn people away because they are..gay..black..white..Latin..Asian..so forth." People do it all the time. And it isn't limited to those groups of people. Would you date an obese individual? I wouldn't. I just discriminated. People have their beliefs, that is on them. Why do you want to prevent people from practicing their beliefs? "When open bigotry becomes normal in society you will not be able to condemn them because it will be part of your society " What makes you think it will be normal? " It took black people a long time to get their rights because prejudice was accepted for so long" And now they have it. "And Jim Crow laws are not the same as anti-discrimination laws" Yes they are as they are both oppressive and extreme. " As for forcing ideas on other people..isn't it wonderful we force the idea that people can't murder for no reason?" When you murder someone you end their life. When you shut down a cake shop you are ruining their lives as well. That cake shop never physically harmed anyone and the gay couple could have went elsewhere.
1
david, it is the same. Also, you can discriminate against businesses you don't like.
1
Robert, times change. People are more liberal socially now. Before no one had sex before marriage. Now it is a rarity. To think a business today can get away with a "whites only" sign is asinine.
1
Mckenzie, your understanding of the Constitution if poor. "Um no it regulates it genius.." That is what limiting it means. "Um yes they do...anti discrimination laws are a perfect example, as well as federal safety regulations and standards etc. etc. " Actually they don't, those should be determined by the state via the 10th amendment. Point to me where in the Constitution the federal government has that authority. "I'd like to hear such an argument that wasn't just, "I'm simply being a racist or bigoted asshole becasue i feel like it."" People have religious beliefs, personal experiences, how they were raised. Everyone is raised differently. You can't fault people for that. How you were raised makes it so you lack understanding the Constitution. "replace gays with any other race or minority and it sounds really bad:" Nope, sounds the same to me. ""Yeah i mean those Jews could have just gone to another country" or "the blacks could have just gone to the colored section of town instead of standing up for themselves..."" Poor analogy, towns and country are determined by government which can't discriminate. "again those people also would have been ruined for not making the cake regardless, given how many people would see them as bigots and blockade their business. " Which is the free market. They have the right to discriminate and people have the right to discriminate against that business. So what's the big deal? "State government forced it, Federal government stopped it with the civil rights act which you have stated as being federal mandate should not have been allowed or legal...." Through the 14th amendment, again,the Constitution limits government. "By mr. pink's logic JFK should not have sent troops to protect black people tying to go to school" 100% not true. I support that as that is the federal government enforcing the Constitution on a government program. "and that any and all federal mandates supporting civil rights and or enforcing laws protecting blacks from lynchings,beatings, discrimination and murder was wrong and unacceptable. " States develop murder laws and they have to enforce them equally via the 14th amendment. Mckenzie, you went from a private business to government. How do you not see the difference?
1
Chris Reed, conservatives support regulations, they just want them done at the state level. Look up the video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups". Very few, if any conservative are screaming that all regulations are evil. They just say we have too many. The political left, however, is screaming for centralized government.
1
jjdude55, the private sector is not the government. Businesses are a part of the private sector. It isn't "state sanctioned discrimination", it is the state allowing the businesses to discriminate if they want to. "How about all discrimination is abhorrent. Period. " Everyone does it, including you. "Everyone should have the right to be equally treated and served by businesses that serve the public" Why? Where is that written? You do not have a right to other people's services and property. You do know you have the ability to discriminate against a business.
1
Joy, that is not necessarily true. Also, having a college degree does not mean you are intelligent. There is a lot more to it than that.
1
Joy Bradford, to add, people with higher income vote republican and there is a correlation between intelligence and income. Also, if democrats are so smart why did they lose?
1
They are a private business. They should be given that right just like you have a right to discriminate against that business. In today's age with information people can oppose businesses more and there is a great need for businesses to act at a PC level.
1
Daniel, I don't support discrimination. However, it naturally happens. Think about this, forced discrimination is just as bad as forced integration. But please, point to me where I supported discrimination.
1
Sam, I agree. With this we can see actual racists and condemn them.
1
MrInuhanyou123, the Constitution only protects us from government, not people. The constitution protects us from being oppressed by government. When a gay couple uses government to oppress a cake shop owner, that is just as bad as Jim Crow laws.
1