Weber Forums • View topic - Confederate flags, tinfoil hat crowd and other nutters.

Re: Confederate flags, tinfoil hat crowd and other nutters.
by Tenshinai » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:12 am
Tenshinai Admiral Posts: 2893 Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm Location: Sweden	HB of CJ wrote:If it is so completely pointless then why is it YOU waving your hands around? Sounds like, (to me) you can not simply take another point of view. It must be your OPINION only which is so sad. Learning more is good. I think I am just going to ignore gcomean. Second time. Again sad. And everybody knows the proper speelling for aluminimuminum is ... alumminuminumm. HB Respectfully. Yep ... don't open. There´s a difference between established facts and opinions. And funny thing, you keep talking about opinions, yet somehow, your opinion supposedly has greater value, regardless if it contradicts known facts. No, just no. And your evasive avoidance of questions are not in any way respectful no matter how often you repeat the word.
Top

Re: Confederate flags, tinfoil hat crowd and other nutters.
by hanuman » Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:26 am
hanuman Captain of the List Posts: 643 Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:47 pm	Howard T. Map-addict wrote:What I noticed about that line was the "honest toil" part. The "toiling" was (in large part) done by the slaves, and then the "earned property" was stolen from them, by the slaveholders, the local, state, and even the federal governments, and sometimes even by others of the "master class" who happened by. But it now seems that you know that, too, and we are looking at that abomination from different angles. Regarding the bakery, were I the lawyer, I would advise against suing, and were I the judge, I would dismiss the lawsuit. I find it a Bad Idea. We are a capitalist country, earning our livings by selling our services, and here are a baker & a florist, refusing their services to people whom they despise at the risk of bankruptcy and starvation, and now in the court are those same despised people, suing to force those anti-capitalist fools to accept their money anyway, and prosper! Me, I would not do it. I'd refuse to force money into their pockets, and then I would urge my friends to Boycott them. Let them go bankrupt and starve, if that is who they are! When a heritage is abominable, love of it is just that bad. Howard "Map-addict" Wilkins, Pointy-Headed Liberal pokermind wrote:I can only shake my head, here I give you the first Confederate national song to look at, and you did not catch the salient point. There is a line in there "We fight for our property we earned by honest toil" Property was a polite word for slaves in the south at that time that would prove your argument that the war was about slavery. Many southern apologists refuse to acknowledge that the war was about slavery. The law in South Carolina was a protest to integration passed in the middle of the Civil Rights struggle and IMHO should be repealed. I'm old enough to recall the Whites only sings in the south and thinking how stupid and unfair it was. So why I could not contradict your points, I agreed with them. Hence cute kitty. OK it's OK for gays to sue a bakery for not making a gay wedding cake due to the owner's beliefs, but it's not OK to sue Wallmart for refusing to make a cake with the Confederate flag so justify that contradiction to me. Both after all are just business decisions. Hmmm, a hint discrimination is discrimination both are justifiable law suits. I still maintain that love of heritage and hate of injustice the flag represents are both valid for the individuals holding them. Who am I or you for that matter to judge the more valid view. Poker Okay, the issue of whether private businesses should be allowed to refuse services to same sex couples or not is really a complicated one and one that I as a gay man feel very conflicted about. On the one hand, I'm tempted to say 'screw them, I'll take my money elsewhere if they don't want it'. On the other hand, allowing businesses to refuse service because of the owners' conscience sets an unfortunate precedent that could very well have an impact far beyond marriage equality. For instance, would it then be okay for a business to refuse services to non-Christians? Or people of color? Or divorced people? Or people who engage in adultery? Where do you draw the line and say 'conscientious objections are fine up to this point, but no further'? Will we as a society pick and choose which marginalized/minority class it is okay to protect and which isn't? I'm not overly familiar with the American legal system, but here in South Africa our particular history means that exclusivist business practices are not tolerated under the law.
Top

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:What I noticed about that line was the "honest toil"
part. The "toiling" was (in large part) done by the
slaves, and then the "earned property" was stolen from
them, by the slaveholders, the local, state, and even
the federal governments, and sometimes even by others
of the "master class" who happened by.
But it now seems that you know that, too, and we
are looking at that abomination from different angles.

Regarding the bakery, were I the lawyer,
I would advise against suing, and were I the judge,
I would dismiss the lawsuit.
I find it a Bad Idea.
We are a capitalist country, earning our livings by
selling our services, and here are a baker & a florist,
refusing their services to people whom they despise
at the risk of bankruptcy and starvation,
and now in the court are those same despised people,
suing to force those anti-capitalist fools to accept
their money anyway, and prosper!
Me, I would not do it. I'd refuse to force money into
their pockets, and then I would urge my friends to
Boycott them. Let them go bankrupt and starve,
if that is who they are!

When a heritage is abominable,
love of it is just that bad.

Howard "Map-addict" Wilkins, Pointy-Headed Liberal

pokermind wrote:I can only shake my head, here I give you the first Confederate national song to look at, and you did not catch the salient point. There is a line in there "We fight for our property we earned by honest toil" Property was a polite word for slaves in the south at that time that would prove your argument that the war was about slavery. Many southern apologists refuse to acknowledge that the war was about slavery.

The law in South Carolina was a protest to integration passed in the middle of the Civil Rights struggle and IMHO should be repealed. I'm old enough to recall the Whites only sings in the south and thinking how stupid and unfair it was.

So why I could not contradict your points, I agreed with them. Hence cute kitty.

OK it's OK for gays to sue a bakery for not making a gay wedding cake due to the owner's beliefs, but it's not OK to sue Wallmart for refusing to make a cake with the Confederate flag so justify that contradiction to me. Both after all are just business decisions. Hmmm, a hint discrimination is discrimination both are justifiable law suits.

I still maintain that love of heritage and hate of injustice the flag represents are both valid for the individuals holding them. Who am I or you for that matter to judge the more valid view.

Poker

Okay, the issue of whether private businesses should be allowed to refuse services to same sex couples or not is really a complicated one and one that I as a gay man feel very conflicted about.

On the one hand, I'm tempted to say 'screw them, I'll take my money elsewhere if they don't want it'.

On the other hand, allowing businesses to refuse service because of the owners' conscience sets an unfortunate precedent that could very well have an impact far beyond marriage equality.

For instance, would it then be okay for a business to refuse services to non-Christians? Or people of color? Or divorced people? Or people who engage in adultery?

Where do you draw the line and say 'conscientious objections are fine up to this point, but no further'? Will we as a society pick and choose which marginalized/minority class it is okay to protect and which isn't?

I'm not overly familiar with the American legal system, but here in South Africa our particular history means that exclusivist business practices are not tolerated under the law.

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Confederate flags, tinfoil hat crowd and other nutters.