toldailytopic: Should business owners have the right to not serve a gay customer?
TOL Topic of the Day - Chime In!Every day we will post a new topic and we want to get your comments on that topic. The topic could be about literally anything from the vague to the specific, important or trivial. The TOL membership can take that topic and run with it!
Only in your narrow minded view of what words mean.
You mean someone who prefers a dictionary to popular whim and logic to supposition. Sure. Thanks.
Quote:
I can see you approach life by another route.
Quote:
Primary = mainstream, commonly understood; primary in the public consciousness
No, kid. Read a dictionary. The first definition under a term is the primary. The second is the secondary and so on. Popularity may eventually alter the order, but not always. Many a popular adaptation has fallen by the way within a generation.
Quote:
AKA most people. But yes, that is what I meant. You actually got it right this time.
Okay. They don't write dictionaries. My point remains, your appeal to the authority of numbers notwithstanding.
Quote:
See above.
Likewise.
Quote:
Missed the point again.
No, I understand the word conceited and your misapprehension.
Quote:
You're conceited because you think you're smarter..
You mean someone who prefers a dictionary to popular whim and logic to supposition. Sure. Thanks.
Popular meanings end up in dictionaries.
gay [gey] adjective gay·er, gay·est,
1. homosexual.
2. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
3. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious, grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed, melancholy.
4.bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. Synonyms: colorful, brilliant, vivid, intense, lustrous; glittering, theatrical, flamboyant. Antonyms: dull, drab, somber, lackluster; conservative.
5.Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive . awkward, stupid, or bad; lame: This game is really gay.
And what's that?! The currently commonly understood mainstream definition is now the primary definition?:
Quote:
No, kid. Read a dictionary. The first definition under a term is the primary. The second is the secondary and so on. Popularity may eventually alter the order, but not always. Many a popular adaptation has fallen by the way within a generation.
See above.
Quote:
Okay. They don't write dictionaries. My point remains, your appeal to the authority of numbers notwithstanding.
midget midg·et (mĭj'ĭt) n.
A person of extremely small stature who is otherwise normally proportioned. Now considered offensive.
Sometimes they do. And sometimes they even become the primary definition. And other times they don't or they don't sustain. Else I could say skin me daddy or use any number of once comprehensible phrases or words that have gone through a slang transformation and back again. There are, by way of more modern example, a great many kids who wouldn't understand me if I asked for bread and wasn't thinking of a sandwich.
Quote:
gay [gey] adjective gay·er, gay·est,
1. homosexual.
Merriam-Webster has that fourth. The primary definition remains the light hearted, traditional one. The Oxford disagrees, so it's a word taking a serious turn toward altering that primary. Or it could retreat within a generation. Who knows? American Heritage tends to parrot Oxford and is a lesser tome.
Quote:
And what's that?! The currently commonly understood mainstream definition is now the primary definition?:
Depends on the source. I've always used Merriam-Webster. The English tend to use the Oxford and it reflects a more European sensibility. We may follow or not. Again, we'll see.
Quote:
midget midg·et (mĭj'ĭt) n.
A person of extremely small stature who is otherwise normally proportioned. Now considered offensive.
Merriam-Webster doesn't concur, though the Oxford does.
Quote:
conceited [kuhn-see-tid] adjective 1. having an excessively favorable opinion of one's abilities, appearance, etc.
I understand the definition. I'm not conceited. I know my Stanford-Binet. I hold a doctorate. I don't find the first a matter of pride as it's nothing more or less than a genetic gift. And while I take a measure of pride in my academic accomplishments, something earned if earned more easily because of the luck of that genetic draw, I wouldn't say I have anything more than a confident and reasonably complete opinion of my abilities, having tested them against others in one of the most competitive and intellectually challenging environments imaginable and having sustained that on the field of battle, so to speak, both in state and federal courtrooms where those abilities were frequently what stood between a man, woman and/or child and personal ruin.
Quote:
Then why do you continue to engage me in conversation?
What does my indifference to your opinion of your comparative abilities have to do with conversation? I'm always curious about what makes people think they way they do. I don't have to agree with an opinion to look at it.
What does my indifference to your opinion of your comparative abilities have to do with conversation? I'm always curious about what makes people think they way they do. I don't have to agree with an opinion to look at it.
If you were indifferent then you would have no curiosity.
If you were indifferent then you would have no curiosity.
My indifference is as particular as my curiosity. I don't care if you believe yourself to be an intellectual dynamo or a terrific free throw shooter. I'm curious about opinion, yours and the next fellow's. Else, I wouldn't engage anyone. I'd blog.
I don't think you can quote me saying anything of the sort, Yor. Now if you license for an open contract with the general public to sell your goods then you have to sell to that public. Your license is a contract to that purpose with the state. And if you don't then you have to set out a business practice that's advanced.
Right. A license is not agreed upon by the business and the state, but forced on the owner by the state. Therefore, a business can disagree with the license and act like they own the business in protest, refraining from contracts they, at their whim like any free person, would rather not engage in.
Quote:
Not if it creates a class.
If a group of people claim to be so oriented... it's still irrelevant even if they do consider themselves a class.
If there is a behavior that certain people engage in, especially evil behavior, it can be discriminated against.
Quote:
Like suggesting that because half of marriages end in divorce you should exclude half your customers. Except at least then you could claim a sort of equality in random exclusion...still wouldn't serve a legitimate business interest though. And unless that practice is being carried on inside your business (which would likely lead you to trouble with the health department) what business interest are you serving by letting your imagination wander where it oughtn't?
So the paralyzed have meaningless marriages? Those who through some other physical infirmity find themselves unable to participate in the act of physical congress are carrying on a sham are they? I think you have a peculiarly narrow vision of the better part of a marriage.
Never trust a man in a conversation that cannot speak in generalities.
Do I need to explain this to you or did you just miss the word "general?" I'll repeat, because I respect you and know you can respond with something relevant.
"The orientation is irrelevant. The act of marrying someone implies the behavior enough that a person can use their resources, their property, to protest it.
In fact, marriage has no general meaning without the act."
Quote:
No, I have an argument anyway even on that point as the people he means to exclude are also contributing to the tax base that allows him to operate his business. He'd have a point were he to provide those services himself, but that's not going to happen.
They pay for their use, and he pays for his. The state should not receive owners rights in addition to taxes.
Quote:
You aren't paying taxes for it. You're contributing to it, as is the fellow you mean to exclude. Else, not true as a matter of law. Call the health department if you don't believe me.
Somehow contributing is different than paying...
The roads are paid by taxes, and the transaction is complete.
Quote:
This is why laymen should ask instead of attempt to lecture on the law. You have a tendency to conflate your desire with the facts. There are all sorts of restrictions on contract. There are elements to be met and purposes to consider. You can't enter into a contract with a minor or to become a slave, by way of example. And "unjust laws" smacks of beauty, living in the eye of the person impacted, but absent a showing of unconstitutionality it's an empty sleeve.
This is really the nub of the matter. That homo's are wrong for their behavior, and that it should be against the law, is not only a matter of my desire, but from God who I align my desires with.
Since the law as it currently stands is wrong on that one big point, you should thank laymen like me for trying to get you back on track. If you are too arrogant to listen, I'm sure you can sooth your soul in the company of the ungodly, sinners, and those scornful of God like those mentioned in Psalm 1.
Quote:
The state actually doesn't see it that way or define it that way. Rather, the state must evidence a compelling interest that overwhelms the interference with a right. So your lawless behavior may cost you liberty, by way of example.
Likely true, but not controlling. You don't get to misstate the law then rest on it as a fiat accompli.
Certainly the state can be wrong, and declare any arbitrary behavior lawless. But if it were just it would only react to evil behavior. It's all it can, according to the laws of physics, do.
Quote:
Rather, here I'm right on the law and our judgment of the behavior as a sin has no bearing since it doesn't find a seat in a secular objection, however we feel about it.
Like I said, you are right on the law, but wrong on the facts. The fact is, homo behavior is wrong regardless what secular objections are raised. If you can't trust God to deliver facts, then you can't trust anything.
Quote:
No, Yor, it isn't. That's just you trying to set the rules. But you don't. The law is as it is. Owning property doesn't give you the right to use it in any number of ways.
Certainly current law doesn't. But part of owning property, and running a business in it, should allow for the proprietor to enter or exclude himself from contracts at his whim.
Quote:
I wrote: The law isn't an instrument to judge your moral standing, only your actions in relation to rights.
Well, no. That's actually contrary to what I noted.
It isn't contrary. As it turns out, God is right. Homo behavior is a bad idea not only because He says so, but because it is bad for society. Realizing homo behavior is a symptom and not the root of the problem, it is still a good idea to suppress a bad symptom.
Good things come to those who shoot straight.
Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
I think you have a peculiarly narrow vision of the better part of a marriage.
Linear Mode
