Originally Posted by suited
A private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. We aren't talking about the fire department or the ER. If my wife and I had went to a bakery prior to our wedding and they didn't want to do business with us because we are an interracial couple, we wouldn't have tried to force them into participating in our wedding. I would have told them to fuck off and found someone who actually wanted to be a part of our wedding.
So....yes, lunch counters should be able to deny blacks service.
Just need to establish the principles we're supposedly working under here.
It's about incremental steps, you know that. They won't need to physically enter your home and confiscate anything. Enacting severe penalties for being in possession of a banned firearm is all they need. Do you think that's going to be far fetched 20, 30 or 50 years from now? We hear this sort of thing all the time. It's always considered crazy to assume that government will continue to encroach, despite that being the case 100 percent of the time. Six years ago it was nonsense to assume that Democrats would attempt to expand Obamacare to illegals. Hillary has openly supported this, and CA is exploring a loophole to make it happen as soon as possible.
We seem to agree that some democrats have personal opinions that favor outlawing most firearms. Are you suggesting that we're okay because of the historic constraint shown by government?
We're, what, 50 years into this whole gun control experiment and it's still trivially easy to get a gun legally in most of the country (state laws being the limiting factor).
This is a very slow moving ploy.
I'm not interested in playing that game, as I've stated before when you asked me to define patriotism. You know what I mean and you know what's happening.
I don't want religion forced on anyone.
No, I really don't know what you mean. Again you're making a really broad statement without giving examples or even clarifying what you're talking about.
The vast majority of "war on Christianity" complaints hinge around stuff like removing Christian monuments from courthouses or idiocy like Starbucks coffee cups. It's either that or "we should be able to discriminate against gays and/or harlots in our businesses."
That's part of it, but it was just before an election. A terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 wouldn't play very well with the public, especially when it was fumbled in a number of ways.
But the corrected statement about the real cause being a terrorist attack came out like two days later, and not because of intense pressure or anything. They just made a new statement. "Oh we said it was because of Youtube but it was terrorism." That's a scandal?