I agree the print shop had the right to refuse service it was not racial; it was a religious view. I feel some so called proud homosexual people are not that happy if they were they would not need to make heterosexual world accept them.
Women can get away with being a tomboy easier than men. I mean, depending on her degree. Aaliyah was pretty tom boyish early in her career but it was cute/sexy. Some girls take it to extremes and look extremely masculine. Most get mistaken for lesbians and while I'll roll the dice and say yes most are, some actually are straight but just dress that way. I stopped dressing that way since people kept thinking certain things about me. Call me ignorant, but it's the truth.
Yeah, there's really no comparison to be made between a boy acting girly & a tomboy. Society's view of gender roles allows for 1 but frowns on the other. Hey, I didn't make rules.
If you have a business license you must abide by the rules of that license, you can'\t pick WHO you want to serve.In your personal life if you don't like fagots thats your business but if you open a PUBLIC business then you have to serve every scum that decides to patronize your business.I agree with live and let live but damn.If you work in healthcare you cant serve patients based on your beliefs you have to serve patients based on the rules of your license. I hate self rightous idiots.
Hey 1sttime, I have a video suggestion that I brought up a while back. Could you do a video on why is that when women (especially black women) say they want a financially stable man they are quickly dismissed as gold diggers. Or people are quick to tell them what they can/cannot get in a man.
@Unekwu89 - BW are dimissed as golddiggers becasue they are TOO VOCAL about thier intentions looking for money in a man,which turns men off, whereas as others races of women are more subtle and cunning in the game.
Its equivalent to man just wanting a piece off ass, women know thats what men want, but if a man reveals his intentions too soon too blunty then hes going to be left holding a dry dick!
@UHeardMe1stTime Can you do a video on this topic, that is requested by the other youtuber. Noone tells anyone they can or cannot get a certain man but expectation for black women are lower
LOL@Uheardme1sttime, it looks like you been listening to Tariq Elite a little bit more than we expected!....seems like you've joined the ANTI-MOIST movement LOL!!!!
Why is this topic still up for discussion. So because you don't allow your son (who really has no idea at that age) to act and dress girly, then that means you're homophobic, or even abusive to your child?
@BeachChairz Obviously you know nothing about childhood psychology. It is an established scientific fact that culturally constructed notions of gender are inculcated in children much earlier than 8 years old. Try 4 or 5. Ask people who're gay and a lot of them will tell you that they knew early on that they did not fit normative expectations of gender identity and sexual orientation.
I had a gay brother who passed 10 YA. I have a gay nephew who when he was a child, my gay brother told me he would be gay; I just took a mental note & was amused by it at the time. Last year, I asked my nephew if he was gay. He said yes. I smiled remembering what my older brother had said. Both my brother & nephew had strong, very strong, female role models; their moms. The fathers were subordinate or altogether absent. I often wonder how much this contributed to their developing identities.
Y did you put those pictures up? I know him he's cool and he doesn't dress like that out side of filming, but i get it was for the attention. Good job Would you have married your husband if you knew he dress girly as child? A lot of Asians give off androgyny as a child.
now u can block me if u want to, i don't give of fuck. but i got to ask you this simple question, u don't think outta 6 billion chinamen or asians its not one of them gay?
The same goes for them who identify as gay, wanting to do business with people who they know don’t want to do business with them. I could possibly understand boycotting or protesting but I would rather let the let the market decide, When you bring in the law and politician your lame.
The comments are hilarious,an atheist being attracted by the gay police. No matter how nice you are or how many times you say live and let live you will be hounded. This is not about equal right or any of that, until you see the world trough their rainbow colored glasses you are not a friend. I think its stupid when black persons go to an all white establishment and tries to sue because they are not welcomed, or when a parent sues an all boy football team because it won’t let a girl play.
Are you blind? That is the SAME guy, just wearing different outfits. And as i said & will not say again, I featured Chris Crocker in my first video & he is ALLLLL white.
Now talk about the subject matter or get outta here.
" its all black men are displayed in that photo she posted in her video. "
That's the same guy genius. He's in the video because I mentioned him. In my FIRST video, I used a photo of a white guy so can that conspiracy theory.
@UHeardMe1stTime Me being against my PARENTS breeding me is not in conflict with my existence. I never asked to be brought into this existence of suffering and eventual death. None of us did. Our breeders self-centeredly decided for us. Why are you pretending to not understand such a simple truth?
@UHeardMe1stTime The comments that you chose to highlight are an opinion but the reality that one cannot choose to come into existence from nonexistence is truth. Besides, my last comment was in response to "You do realize being against your mother's breeding is in conflict with your very existence, right?"
'Gays, swingers, those who worship satan'...Good points in this video but I thought that part was funny as hell. I was on the floor cracking up, not sure what made it so funny to me. Anyway, I dont think I ever commented on any of yor videos, but I had to comment on this one because I couldn't stop laughing.
No boy needs to wear a dress a boy should be a boy, & a girl should be a girl, there is way to much exceptance in this society for homosexuality and this style of living is wrong.
Its absolutely disgusting that we still have people like you who think like this in the supposed "civilised" world. Not all gays are cross dressers, and homosexuality is not wrong, nor is it a choice. Did you choose to be heterosexual? I cant believe their are people on here applauding blatant discrimination. I would think black people would understand more than anyone else in this country why discrimination is wrong. Guess it doesn't matter when its not against you smh.
@IsabellaLemar No what is disgusting is that folk's like you have no boundaries when it comes to right and wrong you just except any old damn thing that goe's down! Now I never made any comment about all gay's being cross dresser's you did don't put word's in my mouth and being gay is wrong and it will never be right not now not ever! And no one is born gay it is an act of free will only it has nothing to do with how you are born. (cont)
@IsabellaLemar And don't ever compare being black with being gay there are no comparison's to be made here because being black is natural where as the practice of homosexuality is not of God, or nature, it is simply not natural period don't even try that slick tricknomic stuff with me it won't work. (end)
You're an idiot. You can dress up your hate and prejudice in any way you like, but the bottom line is that you are on the wrong side of history. Years from now, everyone will look back on people like you, in the same way people look back on the vile racists of Jim Crow and the people who supported the Nazi's. They'll be disgusted at how hateful and ignorant some people can be. Doesn't your imaginary god friend teach you not to judge others.
@IsabellaLemar No your the idiot because I never said once that I hate anyone and for the record you fuckin hypocrite how can you talk about nazism, & Jim Crow, when you have a nazi, Jim Crowish, mindset?! Aren't you the one who called all black people ape's & nigger's, hmmmm dickhead?! YES YOU DID ASSHOLE! Now me telling your simple ass the truth is not me judging you at all it is simply the truth period and that is all. (cont)
You might want to put on a helmet or some other form of protective head gear because I don't want you to make a mess in your mama's house when I blow your mind by telling you that, I AM BLACK (omfg). The person I was responding to, I retyped their comment word for word, the only thing I changed is that instead of using gay slurs I used black ones just to show how hateful her comment was, oh I forgot, its ok to be hateful towards gays, but not blacks. Lmao@#ghettoassniggas
@IsabellaLemar No you might want to put on your helmet and catch the ride on the short yellow bus because I never said once I hated anyone here go read my comment's and I am no nigga, nor am ghetto either. Folk's like you just don't want to hear the truth and everybody just to prove point's always says they are black stop frontin like you are one of us and even if you were black so what! (cont)
@IsabellaLemar And I have also realized that you must be a homo because you are here spending way to much time defending this sick, vile, practice of homosexuality and you can't lie and say anything different cause the truth is in your word's. No real straight man, or woman, would even attempt to defend this if they were really straight in the first place because they would have no stock in the practice of it all period. (end)
@IsabellaLemar Now we will all see how imaginary God really is when he rids the planet of folk's who want to advocate sick, demented, practice's like you! God made Adam, & Eve, not Adam, & Steve, alright you primitive ape?! (end)
To understand the printer situation you have to realize that all commerce is funded by 'the people' due to fiat money. So an analogy would be: Taking up a collection plate in church, where the money goes not to just that church, but all churches of that denomination -- and then, later, when you go to one of those churches, they don't let you in because of X.
So, this is why there can be no discrimination in commerce. If we had real money of substance, there could be.
If "X" is brandishing a weapon it IS discrimination to keep "X" out! Who said discrimination is a negative thing? Every time you go shopping you're discriminating of what you purchase. :)
If you look in the dictionary, the word "run" has upwards of 90 distinct definitions. When a person uses a word, you must take into consideration the context in order to determine the sense in which they mean to use that word.
You cannot change a persons meaning at will just because the words they spoke would remain the same. I mean, its a childish trick and really shouldn't fool anyone -- but it does.
UHeardMe1stTime, I AGREE WITH YOU. IT'S HYPOCRTICAL WHEN PPL SAY THEY ARE FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE, BUT THEY FORCE THEIR LIFESTYLES ON OTHER PPL. For example, Michael Jackson was asexual, but ppl tried to focus him to have sexual relations to, or go with women. I know ppl want to be single, but ppl tried to force relationships or dating on them especially females. I hate when ppl try focus sex or promiscuous sex on ppl who are abstinence, virgins, or celibates.
@TheKennesha Why these ppl I mention who are focusing their believes or lifestyles on other ppl, say they're for freedom of choice, but their actions doesn't speaks itself? I swear it's many hyprocrites in this world.
@TheKennesha I don't think the GLBT community is trying to force anything on anyone. All they're asking for are two basic things: respect & basic human rights. By using your logic you're saying that many years ago whites shouldn't have been forced to be around blacks during the end days of slavery when the new racial integration laws were starting to be put into place.
That's why you had a lot of prosperous towns full of Black people! The whites forced themselves into those towns and took stuff, and burned them down. "Black Wall Street" documentary you can find on youtube. Folks, you gotta get some information before typing. Going through public school is no excuse to be practicing ignorance. There were more Black communities that ran and operated businesses before integration. After integration, it was like 10 steps back!
About the whole printing business argument that's going on. Isn't the customer always right? IMHO business & personal beliefs are two separate things; like apples & oranges. At the end of the day when I'm at work I don't care WHO my customer is, as long as I get a sale & make that money! Just like they say never mix business with pleasure, I say never mix business with personal beliefs.
Technically they weren't customers. And some people have things that they value over "makin' that money". Some people feel they have a higher power to answer to & making money is no comarison to that.
@UHeardMe1stTime Again, that's mixing personal beliefs with something that's helping someone make a living, and put a roof over their head & food on the table. Business = / = Personal
@Bonncier, No that wasn't the logic. For example, let say I want to be a celibate for the rest of my life. I have the right to do that BECAUSE IT'S MY CHOICE, BUT I BET I WILL MEET MANY PPL TRY FORCE RELATIONSHIPS & SEX ON ME. THEN AGAIN, THEY BE THE MAIN ONES SAY THEY'RE FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE, BUT THEIR ACTIONS DOESN'T SPEAK IT. THAT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE WHO LIVES A CERTAIN LIFESTYLE.
@UHeardMe1stTime For example, if I were a Christian who was an employee who worked at McDonalds I wouldn't give a damn if my customer were gay, black, white, trans, asian, etc. As long as they're ordering something and I get paid. In this terrible economy that the USA is suffering from now it would be absolutely FOOLISH to lose any potential customer IMHO!
Then how come the USA isn't selling nuclear information to developing countries on their "terror" watch list? :) They be strapped for cash so ANYTHING goes, right?
@UHeardMe1stTime I also want to clarify myself. When I say "makin' that money" I don't mean "trying to get filthy, dirty, rich because money is THE most important thing in the world and it can bring ultimate happiness" - I hope that THAT'S not the interpretation you got when I said that! When I said "makin' that money" I meant it in terms of basic human survival! No matter who we are: Christian, gay, black, etc. we all need to make a living & have food and a roof over our heads.
I understood you. But what I'm saying is, some people put god & their religious beliefs above making money. They believe that if they are faithful, god will take care of their needs so they don't need to worry about the money they are missing out on by not printing gay wedding announcements. You can't take money to hell or heaven with you when you die. (disclaimer: I am an atheist. I'm just saying what a x-tian would say.)
Interesting. So if you're the one responsible for selling a product that leads to the death of, let's say your friend's child, and you knew full well what harm that product could do, would you still be of the same opinion "It's just business, nothing personal, I got paid" ? If so...I'm glad you ain't my friend.
@SuperLovelygirl1984 It depends on what you believe. If you believe that there is a God, and if you believe that it is a sin to be gay, i.e. God does not approve of homosexual behavior/activities, then as a Christian you ought to remain abstinent. It's quite simple actually.
Nice video. I agree completely. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, but we should also have the right to not like it without being considered "bad."
@sinistavoicez So you're saying that you chose to be heterosexual and that you forced your body to be hormonally attracted to the opposite sex when you went through puberty?
I'm sorry but you simply don't make sense. A situation where a Christian couple wants to print "anti-gay" literature is disanalogous to a situation where Christian business owners won't serve someone BECAUSE they're gay. In one situation someone is not served because of what they want to print, in the other someone is disallowed service because of who they are. Totally different.
"In one situation someone is not served because of what they want to print, in the other someone is disallowed service because of who they are."
Now THAT doesn't make sense. In both examples, someone wanted to print something. If you want to make the "who they are" argument, then christian is who the christian couple are (is). MOSt christians do not agree with the gay lifestyle & should not not be forced to recognize it.
@UHeardMe1stTime You seem to be confused. They HAVE to recognize it in certain contexts. That's what Brown vs Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are all about. You cannot refuse someone service because of who they are. If you are a business you can't discriminate. Period. Now, if you want to argue that discrimination should be legal you better be prepared to take down the constitution and federal anti-discrimination laws.
Women's gyms can refuse to let men join or even ENTER the building. That's discrimination. Private businesses can discriminate but most don't because it would hurt their business & they would lose out on potential customers.
@UHeardMe1stTime Again, you're simply wrong. 1) Whether or not a business CAN discriminate and whether or not they DO, are two different things. Under federal laws they can't discriminate. 2) Various state legislatures have already passed laws allowing female only gyms. But you do raise an interesting question, so I'll have to think about this more.
But isn't saying that people should allow other to discriminate against them? With the gay couple you used before, by them being denied use of that printing shop it is discrimination, that's why they sued. If you want to own a public business you don't have the right to alienate groups of people because you personally don't care for them. That's for your house. People have the right to not be "okay" with homosexuality, but when homosexuals are denied basic civil liberties that's a problem.
@MelinaPendulum "If you want to own a ...." ITs not a public business , like the library is owned by the public through tax dollars, the business is open to the public, but it is not owned by the majority of the public. Since it is not owned by all of the public, why should the public have a right to dictate who is allowed on a business and who isn't rather than the business owner?
Plenty of other printers they could've gone to. The only reason I can see them suing is if they were verbally assaulted during the process of being denied service in front of other customers. There's gotta be more to the story than " denied service"
@MelinaPendulum It's not a problem at all. Homosexuality is not a gender and never will be. If Homosexuals don't want to be denied "basic civil liberties" then stop behaving like fags. Problem solved.
Good vid! I Agree and I'm glad you've decided to stay with the classic theme of this channel and not show yourself in your vids here. I dig the mystery.
@bgrim2008, the black community? If only there was one. The infrastructure was destroyed some time ago. This why you get what you see today. Don't blame "male homosexuality" on "feminism." Feminism is about women, the best you'd get is a male respectful & comfortable around women. His sexual inclination would not be influenced in any way from it. Now hangin with the boyz, well ...LOL!
i understand what you mean by saying that no parent wants their kid to be transgender and it would take parents a wile to get use to it cuz Imagen if it was the opposite Imagen if a parent desired to become transgender how would the children feel about that and Imagen how hard it would be for a child to accept their mom becoming a dude or their dad becoming a woman
Knowing the litigious atmosphere of the entire USA, those printers should have been really slick. Simple answer "We have too many jobs and are unable to do yours." and recommend another printer. True everyone has the right to choose what jobs they'll do, or who they hire, yet, they still gotta be slick about it. Just like the "I'm sorry the position has already been filled" statement.
@MrRossT1 Well thanks for giving people pointers on how to discriminate without being caught. It is simply not true that "everyone has the right to choose what jobs they'll do." That's certainly not what Brown vs Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says. Public businesses are subject to federal anti-discrimination laws. Period.
Printing gay literature was against that x-tian couple's religion. We have freedom of religion in this country right? The gay couple can go to another printer. Forcing people to comply with certain beliefs gives gays a bad wrap.
@UHeardMe1stTime You're reasoning is fallacious. We do have freedom of religion in this country, but it's the freedom to practice whatever religion we want or not to practice a religion at all without outside interference. It does not mean that you can use your religion to discriminate against other people. Based on your reasoning Muslims can simply deny service to Christians on the grounds that they're infidels.
@UHeardMe1stTime "People should be free to associate & disassociate with whomever they please."
In their personal lives - absolutely! At work - hell no! My boss would be pissed as hell if I told a customer that I rejected a potential sale from them due to their sexual orientation and/or race and I would definitely get fired!
@UHeardMe1stTime People like you disturb me. You seem to not understand what a pluralistic democracy is, what the constitution is and what it allows and disallows. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the country in which you live. I'm honestly shocked that you are arguing FOR disregarding the constitution and allowing people to discriminate against other people. Are you telling me that you would have advocated for Plessy vs Ferguson?
The couple had their right to freedom of religion infringed upon. Homosexuality is against their religion & they did not wish to support it in any way. The couple could have gone to another business.
@UHeardMe1stTime People don't have a religious right to discriminate against someone else. What don't you understand about this? Why can't you seem to understand that the constitution allows you to believe whatever you want but does not allow you to act in accordance with those beliefs when they interfere with someone else constitutional rights and civil liberties? Again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "freedom of religion" means.
What I'm telling you is that the gay couple wanted to force the christian couple to do something that they see as being against their religion. People should not be forced to associate with people that they don't want to associate with. Bringing up court cases & the constitution is irrelevant because I am telling you what I would like to see happen. So if you want to debate me on why you think what I'm saying is a bad idea, fine. But a debate about what laws say, not interested.
@UHeardMe1stTime Freedom of religion means no one can force you to practice another religion and no one can impede your ability to practice your religion, but your right to practice a religion stops at my civil liberties. The constitution inherently places a legal check on everyone's actions with regard to religion. If your argument were true people could claim my religion allows me to murder and if you don't allow me to murder then you've taken away my freedom of religion. See?
My argument is about leaving people free to live their lives as they please & not be forced to do things they do not want to do. Your murder example is not valid because the murdered person would not be free to live their lives as they please. Forget all these legal terms & court cases because it's distracting you from what I'm saying. I'm saying people should be free to associate with whom they please.
@UHeardMe1stTime You are flat out contradicting yourself. You keep saying that people should be allowed to associate with whom they please, not realizing that refusing to associate with certain people i.e. refusing them service at your place of business leads to an ideology which makes discrimination permissible. And discrimination has a direct effect on others. The only way you can believe what you say is if you antecedently accept discrimination as morally permissible.
Just because you don't agree with what someone says doesn't mean you should silence their freedom of speech. And just because you don't agree with someone not wanting to associate with black people (for example) doesn't mean you should force them to associate with blacks. Why should someone be forced to associate with people they don't want to?
@UHeardMe1stTime I haven't taken away your freedom of speech, you can still type can't you? I never even said you should be quiet, I simply said you don't deserve to live in a democracy.
Second you need to learn reading comprehension. Here is what I said in my last post verbatim: "You are free not to associate with blacks if you don't want to, but if your non-association includes discrimination, then that can't be allowed." I never claimed you had to associate with blacks.
"I haven't taken away your freedom of speech, you can still type can't you? I never even said you should be quiet, I simply said you don't deserve to live in a democracy."
When I said that I wasn't talking about you & me. That was part of my argument. Read the whole passage.
If a business had a policy not to serve blacks, how long do you think they would stay in business? They would probably get boycotted out of business. Also since businesses are in it for the money, you don't have to worry about too many businesses turning down potential customers. So there's no need for a law to force businesses to serve anyone anymore.
@UHeardMe1stTime This argument is fallacious. Discrimination is morally impermissible, this is a moral debate not an economic one. A society that allows people to discriminate against other members of society is unjust. There are plenty of businesses that would discriminate against Muslims, for example, irrespective of the economic consequences.
This is why the law is flawed & why i'm not debating about the law. While granting someone else "civil liberties" you take away the other party's rights to associate with whom they please.
Everybody should be left free & the market will take care of discrimination.
@UHeardMe1stTime Now I see that there's no hope for you, you're an absolute retard. If it was true that free markets precluded discrimination, then the legal abolition of segregation would not have been necessary. You're empirically denied. You can only make asinine claims like this because the law has already abolished discrimination. I would have like to see you make this argument in the 1950's, you would have been laughed at.
@UHeardMe1stTime But I want to associate with you, and if you block me you'll be taking away my "right" to associate with whom I please. Do you see how silly your argument is? What about stalkers who want to associate with the people they stalk? Your view is completely unrealistic and naive. Society is about balancing competing goods; people don't and can't have an unequivocal so-called "right" to either associate or disassociate with whomever they please.
@UHeardMe1stTime Why does it have to be mutual? The only thing you've been talking about is someone should be allowed to associate or not associate with whomever they please. It is a fact that if you disallow someone to associate with someone that they want to associate with, then you are taking away their "right" to associate with someone that they want to associate with. Your argument is a sword that cuts both ways. Are you now amending your argument?
Because if it's not mutual then someone is being force to associate with someone they don't wish to & I'm been saying that no one should be forced to do that from the beginning.
@UHeardMe1stTime You either believe that everyone has an unequivocal so-called "right" to associate or not associate with whomever they want or they don't; it's a zero-sum game. If you don't believe people have this unequivocal right then every argument you've made up until now is void, and you'll have to concede that this "right" can be limited in light of other competing goods.
Again, you're getting hung up on legal terms. So, I'll state it without the "legalese". I don't think anyone should be forced to associate with anyone they do not wish to. There.
@UHeardMe1stTime And I'm asking this within the specific context of discrimination. I'm asking why people should be allowed to discriminate against other people. I want a moral argument, not an economic or practical one.
@UHeardMe1stTime Use the example of the gay couple and the printing press. From a moral standpoint why should the couple who owns the printing press be allowed to discriminate against gay people?
The x-tian couple DOES NOT believe in homosexuality (HS for short) so they did not want to print invitations for a gay marriage. Since there are other printing presses whether in that city or online, the gay couple can find another printer who is willing. But if the x-tian couple is FORCED to do the job, their freedom of association is taken away. Nobody loses their rights if the gay couple goes somewhere else. They can get their gay invitations elsewhere.
@UHeardMe1stTime Again, I want a moral argument, not a practical one. I don't care if they can get their invitations somewhere else. I'm asking you to give me a MORAL argument about why people should be allowed to discriminate against others.
1. I don't have to give you the type argument you specify. I can just give you MY reason regardless of what category (moral, legal) you want to file it under. 2. That is a moral argument. The x-tian couple finds HS morally WRONG.
@UHeardMe1stTime The way I see it, the irony in the whole situation is that by the Christian printing press rejecting the gay couple, the Christians are ALREADY not staying true to their beliefs anyway for doing that. God is all about unconditional love, loving everyone, love thy neighbor and even thy enemy too as well. Discriminating against someone isn't very Christian-like behavior from the get-go.
Whoa, buddy. They weren't denied service "for being gay". They were denied service because the printers did not agree with the print job. I'm willing to bet that if the gay couple had come in wanting to print announcements for feeding the homeless, the job would have been accepted.
@UHeardMe1stTime Your argument suffers from a very common logical fallacy known as begging the question (see wikipedia).
This is your argument: it's bad for the Christian couple to be forced to print the invitations because their freedom of association would be taken away. Yet it is precisely this freedom of association that I am asking you justify in moral terms; you can't presuppose the existence of a moral principle I am asking you to justify.
"it is precisely this freedom of association that I am asking you justify in moral terms"
Because no one should be forced to be around people they don't wanna. Imagine if you were forced to be around racists or pedophiles. You may not always agree with people's choice of association but if you want freedom of association you should defend EVERYONE'S freedom of association. Same thing with freedom of speech. Defend it all, or defend none of it.
@UHeardMe1stTime Like I said before, you have reached the pentacle of circular reasoning. People shouldn't be forced to associate with people they don't want to because they shouldn't be forced to be around people they don't want to. Classic circular reasoning: A is justified by B, B is justified by A.
@uberhikari Lol, I know right. Silly, isn't it? I'm starting to wonder if this person has ever had a job or not. When your in the workplace out there in the real world you're bound to have a co-worker or two who you don't want to associate with, but you're forced to anyway because it's part of the job and you have to work together with people you don't necessarily like in order to get the job task done.
"People shouldn't be forced to associate with people they don't want to because they shouldn't be forced to be around people they don't want to. "
I didn't say that. YOU did. Are you expecting me to tell you why people should not be forced to associate with those they do not want to? You're like the toddler who keeps asking why every time you give an answer. I've already explained my position. The gay couple can go somewhere else so no one loses their freedom.
@UHeardMe1stTime One day you'll understand that you have to give coherent reasons for why you believe what you believe. I'm asking you why is was moral for the Christian couple to turn them away in the first place. You can choose not to answer this, as you've alluded to in a previous post, but without this justification your argument is morally suspect.
@UHeardMe1stTime You can't even address my arguments anyone, you just have a whole bunch of assertions that you can't even defend with argumentation. Quite frankly I don't care what you believe, I care about your arguments, and right now they're about as silly as they can get. You keep claiming that we're not talking about the law, and yet here you are talking about the "right" to associate with whomever you please, LOL. Where did you get this "right" from?
@UHeardMe1stTime I wish you were a black woman in MIssissippi in the 1890's making this argument. They would have put you in an insane asylum. Free markets take care of discrimination, the best laugh I've had in a long time.
@UHeardMe1stTime Yeah because people really want to live in a society where MOST people are not discriminated against. Your position is foolish. Are you really arguing that the price of allowing people to unequivocally associate or disassociate with whomever they please is injustice? You are admitting that your position allows for injustice? How could you ever believe that your position is morally defensible, unless you believe in some form of utilitarianism?
Here's what i'm saying. If i own a burger business & I don't want to serve people uberhikari, you can go to another burger business. But if I am forced to serve you, my choice is taken away. That's not fair to me. Association should be MUTUAL.
@uberhikari "I wish you were a black woman in MIssissippi in the 1890's making this argument. " There were no free markets in the South, in the 1890's. Jim Crow was imposed onto southern society by the government. There is a thirty page economics paper published the economics journal review where it is written that there were street car trolleys lobbying the government to end racial segregation because it was economically hurting them as a business. Jim Crow was not a free market
@Pentazoid111 Even if I grant your position, which I don't, that still doesn't mean that a group of people couldn't refuse to serve another group of people within a free market. If enough people thought the cost of economic consequences did not outweigh their racist beliefs then could still discriminate against others within a free market. My argument still stands; free markets don't preclude discrimination.
@uberhikari You can not grant my position all you want, I can demonstrate to you , using historical records , that jim crow was sanctioned by the government , because IT was against the law for people to make business associations with people of another race and free markets are based on free associations.People can discriminate and they should be allowed to. Fraternities and sororities are examples of discrimination. You discriminate when you choose certain freindships and romances
@uberhikari I never made the claim that free markets don't preclude discrimination, but based on historical US records, governments are better at wielding racial segregation in businesses than the free market. Before the civil war, in free US states, there were plenty of businesses that allowed racial integration , most notably saloons and dance clubs. Housing segregation was heavily promoted by the FHA after ww2, a government agency that subsidized housing.
@Pentazoid111 Are you a historian? Can you recommend some books or other articles on this? I'm not sure if I agree, but I simply don't have enough historical knowledge about this to make an argument either way. Take the case of Wal Mart, for example, they have been discriminating against women for a long time and they haven't been economically punished and we have a free market.
@UHeardMe1stTime Moreover, everyone is endowed with reason and rationality and, therefore, possesses dignity and rights as a human being. These rights exist irrespective of any legal context, but it is only within the context of law that they can be protected and enforced. If you believe that the law has no bearing on this discussion then you don't understand how democracy works, and quite frankly you don't deserve to live in one.
When you use all these buzz words like democracy, & constitution, you speaking as if I believe these things are the holy grail. The constitution & democracy were made by fallible humans so they are not perfect. So stop treating them like the bible & listen to my argument. I'm not arguing what the law says or doesn't say. I'm saying my opinion of how things should be.
@UHeardMe1stTime Again, if you don't believe in the ethical principles outlined in the constitution, if you don't believe in pluralistic democracy, then why are you here? Second, I never claimed that the constitution was the "holy grail," stop putting words in my mouth. The constitution has been amended several times in the past, and rightly so. The constitution was not, is not, and never will be a perfect document.
I agree the print shop had the right to refuse service it was not racial; it was a religious view. I feel some so called proud homosexual people are not that happy if they were they would not need to make heterosexual world accept them.
flc2009 3 weeks ago
excellent video
imsatindoll 1 month ago in playlist More videos from UHeardMe1stTime
Women can get away with being a tomboy easier than men. I mean, depending on her degree. Aaliyah was pretty tom boyish early in her career but it was cute/sexy. Some girls take it to extremes and look extremely masculine. Most get mistaken for lesbians and while I'll roll the dice and say yes most are, some actually are straight but just dress that way. I stopped dressing that way since people kept thinking certain things about me. Call me ignorant, but it's the truth.
ImNotYourFriend212 1 month ago
@ImNotYourFriend212
Yeah, there's really no comparison to be made between a boy acting girly & a tomboy. Society's view of gender roles allows for 1 but frowns on the other. Hey, I didn't make rules.
UHeardMe1stTime 1 month ago
If you have a business license you must abide by the rules of that license, you can'\t pick WHO you want to serve.In your personal life if you don't like fagots thats your business but if you open a PUBLIC business then you have to serve every scum that decides to patronize your business.I agree with live and let live but damn.If you work in healthcare you cant serve patients based on your beliefs you have to serve patients based on the rules of your license. I hate self rightous idiots.
CJHWildcat 2 months ago 5
Homosexuality is wrong. it just is. This is why faggs can't have children even nature says so.
Now its time to drop the subject.
theracemixer 2 months ago 10
@theracemixer fucking straights! feels good huh!? you stupid!
coopi1481 2 months ago
@coopi1481 Yup it feels real good and i can leave my dna after the fact unlike a faggot like you.
theracemixer 2 months ago
@theracemixer you're stupid enough to believe i cannot leave my dna too! *lol* . i just knew it!
coopi1481 2 months ago
@theracemixer: bullshit a lot of species have homosexuality in them and it doesn't matter if they can have children or not
AlienKing222 4 days ago
Hey 1sttime, I have a video suggestion that I brought up a while back. Could you do a video on why is that when women (especially black women) say they want a financially stable man they are quickly dismissed as gold diggers. Or people are quick to tell them what they can/cannot get in a man.
Unekwu89 2 months ago
@Unekwu89 - BW are dimissed as golddiggers becasue they are TOO VOCAL about thier intentions looking for money in a man,which turns men off, whereas as others races of women are more subtle and cunning in the game.
Its equivalent to man just wanting a piece off ass, women know thats what men want, but if a man reveals his intentions too soon too blunty then hes going to be left holding a dry dick!
KiddDynamite270 2 months ago
@KiddDynamite270
That's what lotion and a box of kleenex is for! :) Go solo!! :)
MrRossT1 2 months ago
@Unekwu89
In what situation are black women being told what they can & can't get in a man.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago in playlist More videos from UHeardMe1stTime
@UHeardMe1stTime Can you do a video on this topic, that is requested by the other youtuber. Noone tells anyone they can or cannot get a certain man but expectation for black women are lower
MJTP01 2 months ago in playlist More videos from UHeardMe1stTime
@UHeardMe1stTime Unek is talking aout women in the media being called golddiggers. You should tell her you have a vid on that.
kmcl11 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from UHeardMe1stTime
LOL@Uheardme1sttime, it looks like you been listening to Tariq Elite a little bit more than we expected!....seems like you've joined the ANTI-MOIST movement LOL!!!!
GreeenArrow1 2 months ago
Its true ... i hate when people try to own words...
jadenwoods11 2 months ago
I know that I usually make comments when I don't agree with your video or something in your video, but, I'm going to be fair and say, I AGREE 100%.
DionLaurent1 2 months ago
spot on
jmsnooks 2 months ago
This is what happens when PC goes too far.
Why is this topic still up for discussion. So because you don't allow your son (who really has no idea at that age) to act and dress girly, then that means you're homophobic, or even abusive to your child?
Good vid UHeardMe, spot on as usual.
BeachChairz 2 months ago
@BeachChairz Obviously you know nothing about childhood psychology. It is an established scientific fact that culturally constructed notions of gender are inculcated in children much earlier than 8 years old. Try 4 or 5. Ask people who're gay and a lot of them will tell you that they knew early on that they did not fit normative expectations of gender identity and sexual orientation.
uberhikari 2 months ago
I had a gay brother who passed 10 YA. I have a gay nephew who when he was a child, my gay brother told me he would be gay; I just took a mental note & was amused by it at the time. Last year, I asked my nephew if he was gay. He said yes. I smiled remembering what my older brother had said. Both my brother & nephew had strong, very strong, female role models; their moms. The fathers were subordinate or altogether absent. I often wonder how much this contributed to their developing identities.
vutube379 2 months ago
"Listen here you little faggot, you're not wearing a dress!"
You know you said that to make folks laugh. LMAO
♥♥♥ Marashor ♥♥♥♥
Marashor 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 3
Id rather be gay than white or latino, lol
Mikenified 2 months ago
Y did you put those pictures up? I know him he's cool and he doesn't dress like that out side of filming, but i get it was for the attention. Good job Would you have married your husband if you knew he dress girly as child? A lot of Asians give off androgyny as a child.
Mikenified 2 months ago
now u can block me if u want to, i don't give of fuck. but i got to ask you this simple question, u don't think outta 6 billion chinamen or asians its not one of them gay?
cocoaj13 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@cocoaj13
Chris Crocker
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime i guess you answer, is no...thank you.
cocoaj13 2 months ago
@cocoaj13
You're welcome
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
The same goes for them who identify as gay, wanting to do business with people who they know don’t want to do business with them. I could possibly understand boycotting or protesting but I would rather let the let the market decide, When you bring in the law and politician your lame.
nomyaw 2 months ago
The comments are hilarious,an atheist being attracted by the gay police. No matter how nice you are or how many times you say live and let live you will be hounded. This is not about equal right or any of that, until you see the world trough their rainbow colored glasses you are not a friend. I think its stupid when black persons go to an all white establishment and tries to sue because they are not welcomed, or when a parent sues an all boy football team because it won’t let a girl play.
nomyaw 2 months ago
@iamtheemighty1
Are you blind? That is the SAME guy, just wearing different outfits. And as i said & will not say again, I featured Chris Crocker in my first video & he is ALLLLL white.
Now talk about the subject matter or get outta here.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@iamtheemighty1
" its all black men are displayed in that photo she posted in her video. "
That's the same guy genius. He's in the video because I mentioned him. In my FIRST video, I used a photo of a white guy so can that conspiracy theory.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
I don't want to be associated with breeders. Fuck 'em and their lifestyle choice. I don't support that shit.
rep5281 2 months ago
@rep5281
Your mother is a breeder.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime My mother and father are breeders and this is why I can't fucking stand them.
rep5281 2 months ago
@rep5281
You do realize being against your mother's breeding is in conflict with your very existence, right?
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Me being against my PARENTS breeding me is not in conflict with my existence. I never asked to be brought into this existence of suffering and eventual death. None of us did. Our breeders self-centeredly decided for us. Why are you pretending to not understand such a simple truth?
rep5281 2 months ago
@rep5281
"Why are you pretending to not understand such a simple truth?"
Perhaps you don't remember your 1st 2 comments. So i'll refresh you.
1.I don't want to be associated with breeders. Fuck 'em and their lifestyle choice. I don't support that shit.
2.My mother and father are breeders and this is why I can't fucking stand them.
These comments contain no "truths", just you saying you don't like breeders or your parents.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime The comments that you chose to highlight are an opinion but the reality that one cannot choose to come into existence from nonexistence is truth. Besides, my last comment was in response to "You do realize being against your mother's breeding is in conflict with your very existence, right?"
rep5281 2 months ago
'Gays, swingers, those who worship satan'...Good points in this video but I thought that part was funny as hell. I was on the floor cracking up, not sure what made it so funny to me. Anyway, I dont think I ever commented on any of yor videos, but I had to comment on this one because I couldn't stop laughing.
Mscookie3131 2 months ago
And show some white faggots, like its only nigga faggots. You're letting everybody know that you are a black male basher.
cocoaj13 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I don't care how much you disagree, there always will be punks. they're all around the world
cocoaj13 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
No boy needs to wear a dress a boy should be a boy, & a girl should be a girl, there is way to much exceptance in this society for homosexuality and this style of living is wrong.
007MegaPhoenix 2 months ago
@007MegaPhoenix
Its absolutely disgusting that we still have people like you who think like this in the supposed "civilised" world. Not all gays are cross dressers, and homosexuality is not wrong, nor is it a choice. Did you choose to be heterosexual? I cant believe their are people on here applauding blatant discrimination. I would think black people would understand more than anyone else in this country why discrimination is wrong. Guess it doesn't matter when its not against you smh.
IsabellaLemar 2 months ago
@IsabellaLemar No what is disgusting is that folk's like you have no boundaries when it comes to right and wrong you just except any old damn thing that goe's down! Now I never made any comment about all gay's being cross dresser's you did don't put word's in my mouth and being gay is wrong and it will never be right not now not ever! And no one is born gay it is an act of free will only it has nothing to do with how you are born. (cont)
007MegaPhoenix 2 months ago
@IsabellaLemar And don't ever compare being black with being gay there are no comparison's to be made here because being black is natural where as the practice of homosexuality is not of God, or nature, it is simply not natural period don't even try that slick tricknomic stuff with me it won't work. (end)
007MegaPhoenix 2 months ago
@007MegaPhoenix
You're an idiot. You can dress up your hate and prejudice in any way you like, but the bottom line is that you are on the wrong side of history. Years from now, everyone will look back on people like you, in the same way people look back on the vile racists of Jim Crow and the people who supported the Nazi's. They'll be disgusted at how hateful and ignorant some people can be. Doesn't your imaginary god friend teach you not to judge others.
IsabellaLemar 2 months ago
@IsabellaLemar No your the idiot because I never said once that I hate anyone and for the record you fuckin hypocrite how can you talk about nazism, & Jim Crow, when you have a nazi, Jim Crowish, mindset?! Aren't you the one who called all black people ape's & nigger's, hmmmm dickhead?! YES YOU DID ASSHOLE! Now me telling your simple ass the truth is not me judging you at all it is simply the truth period and that is all. (cont)
007MegaPhoenix 2 months ago 4
@007MegaPhoenix
You might want to put on a helmet or some other form of protective head gear because I don't want you to make a mess in your mama's house when I blow your mind by telling you that, I AM BLACK (omfg). The person I was responding to, I retyped their comment word for word, the only thing I changed is that instead of using gay slurs I used black ones just to show how hateful her comment was, oh I forgot, its ok to be hateful towards gays, but not blacks. Lmao@#ghettoassniggas
IsabellaLemar 2 months ago
@IsabellaLemar No you might want to put on your helmet and catch the ride on the short yellow bus because I never said once I hated anyone here go read my comment's and I am no nigga, nor am ghetto either. Folk's like you just don't want to hear the truth and everybody just to prove point's always says they are black stop frontin like you are one of us and even if you were black so what! (cont)
007MegaPhoenix 2 months ago
@IsabellaLemar And I have also realized that you must be a homo because you are here spending way to much time defending this sick, vile, practice of homosexuality and you can't lie and say anything different cause the truth is in your word's. No real straight man, or woman, would even attempt to defend this if they were really straight in the first place because they would have no stock in the practice of it all period. (end)
007MegaPhoenix 2 months ago
@IsabellaLemar Now we will all see how imaginary God really is when he rids the planet of folk's who want to advocate sick, demented, practice's like you! God made Adam, & Eve, not Adam, & Steve, alright you primitive ape?! (end)
007MegaPhoenix 2 months ago
@cocoaisbeautiful
Thanks
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
To understand the printer situation you have to realize that all commerce is funded by 'the people' due to fiat money. So an analogy would be: Taking up a collection plate in church, where the money goes not to just that church, but all churches of that denomination -- and then, later, when you go to one of those churches, they don't let you in because of X.
So, this is why there can be no discrimination in commerce. If we had real money of substance, there could be.
mindprism 2 months ago
@mindprism
if "X" is brandishing a weapon, you bet you will be denied entry!
MrRossT1 2 months ago
@MrRossT1 In my example, 'X' is a placeholder for various types of discrimination, not an 'insert anything here' variable.
mindprism 2 months ago
@mindprism
If "X" is brandishing a weapon it IS discrimination to keep "X" out! Who said discrimination is a negative thing? Every time you go shopping you're discriminating of what you purchase. :)
MrRossT1 2 months ago
@MrRossT1 {it IS discrimination}
If you look in the dictionary, the word "run" has upwards of 90 distinct definitions. When a person uses a word, you must take into consideration the context in order to determine the sense in which they mean to use that word.
You cannot change a persons meaning at will just because the words they spoke would remain the same. I mean, its a childish trick and really shouldn't fool anyone -- but it does.
Not I though. =)
mindprism 2 months ago
How did you put the picture in the video? thnx
ScarletFierce 2 months ago
Yeah girl I totally agree I'm gonna respond :)!!!
Bonitaymorena 2 months ago
Does god owe Sodom & Gamora an apology"
firefox8192 2 months ago
can anyone say T.TOP.CAR
firefox8192 2 months ago
UHeardMe1stTime, I AGREE WITH YOU. IT'S HYPOCRTICAL WHEN PPL SAY THEY ARE FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE, BUT THEY FORCE THEIR LIFESTYLES ON OTHER PPL. For example, Michael Jackson was asexual, but ppl tried to focus him to have sexual relations to, or go with women. I know ppl want to be single, but ppl tried to force relationships or dating on them especially females. I hate when ppl try focus sex or promiscuous sex on ppl who are abstinence, virgins, or celibates.
TheKennesha 2 months ago
@TheKennesha Why these ppl I mention who are focusing their believes or lifestyles on other ppl, say they're for freedom of choice, but their actions doesn't speaks itself? I swear it's many hyprocrites in this world.
TheKennesha 2 months ago
@TheKennesha I don't think the GLBT community is trying to force anything on anyone. All they're asking for are two basic things: respect & basic human rights. By using your logic you're saying that many years ago whites shouldn't have been forced to be around blacks during the end days of slavery when the new racial integration laws were starting to be put into place.
Booncier 2 months ago
@Booncier I wasn't refering to the Gay or Lesbian community.
TheKennesha 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheKennesha 2 months ago
@Booncier
That's why you had a lot of prosperous towns full of Black people! The whites forced themselves into those towns and took stuff, and burned them down. "Black Wall Street" documentary you can find on youtube. Folks, you gotta get some information before typing. Going through public school is no excuse to be practicing ignorance. There were more Black communities that ran and operated businesses before integration. After integration, it was like 10 steps back!
MrRossT1 2 months ago
About the whole printing business argument that's going on. Isn't the customer always right? IMHO business & personal beliefs are two separate things; like apples & oranges. At the end of the day when I'm at work I don't care WHO my customer is, as long as I get a sale & make that money! Just like they say never mix business with pleasure, I say never mix business with personal beliefs.
Booncier 2 months ago
@Booncier
"Isn't the customer always right?"
Technically they weren't customers. And some people have things that they value over "makin' that money". Some people feel they have a higher power to answer to & making money is no comarison to that.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Again, that's mixing personal beliefs with something that's helping someone make a living, and put a roof over their head & food on the table. Business = / = Personal
Booncier 2 months ago
@Booncier
No I get it, but some people have things that are more important to them than money- their god / religion.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bonncier, No that wasn't the logic. For example, let say I want to be a celibate for the rest of my life. I have the right to do that BECAUSE IT'S MY CHOICE, BUT I BET I WILL MEET MANY PPL TRY FORCE RELATIONSHIPS & SEX ON ME. THEN AGAIN, THEY BE THE MAIN ONES SAY THEY'RE FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE, BUT THEIR ACTIONS DOESN'T SPEAK IT. THAT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE WHO LIVES A CERTAIN LIFESTYLE.
TheKennesha 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime For example, if I were a Christian who was an employee who worked at McDonalds I wouldn't give a damn if my customer were gay, black, white, trans, asian, etc. As long as they're ordering something and I get paid. In this terrible economy that the USA is suffering from now it would be absolutely FOOLISH to lose any potential customer IMHO!
Booncier 2 months ago
@Booncier
" In this terrible economy that the USA is suffering from now it would be absolutely FOOLISH to lose any potential customer IMHO!"
Like I said, some people put certain things above making money. May not make sense to you or me but that's their right.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime
Agreed.:) People have a right to choose.:) Who they hire, who they fire, who they buy from, who they choose to associate with. On point.:)
MrRossT1 2 months ago
@Booncier
Then how come the USA isn't selling nuclear information to developing countries on their "terror" watch list? :) They be strapped for cash so ANYTHING goes, right?
MrRossT1 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime I also want to clarify myself. When I say "makin' that money" I don't mean "trying to get filthy, dirty, rich because money is THE most important thing in the world and it can bring ultimate happiness" - I hope that THAT'S not the interpretation you got when I said that! When I said "makin' that money" I meant it in terms of basic human survival! No matter who we are: Christian, gay, black, etc. we all need to make a living & have food and a roof over our heads.
Booncier 2 months ago
@Booncier
I understood you. But what I'm saying is, some people put god & their religious beliefs above making money. They believe that if they are faithful, god will take care of their needs so they don't need to worry about the money they are missing out on by not printing gay wedding announcements. You can't take money to hell or heaven with you when you die. (disclaimer: I am an atheist. I'm just saying what a x-tian would say.)
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@Booncier
Interesting. So if you're the one responsible for selling a product that leads to the death of, let's say your friend's child, and you knew full well what harm that product could do, would you still be of the same opinion "It's just business, nothing personal, I got paid" ? If so...I'm glad you ain't my friend.
MrRossT1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperLovelygirl1984 It depends on what you believe. If you believe that there is a God, and if you believe that it is a sin to be gay, i.e. God does not approve of homosexual behavior/activities, then as a Christian you ought to remain abstinent. It's quite simple actually.
uberhikari 2 months ago
Nice video. I agree completely. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, but we should also have the right to not like it without being considered "bad."
LadyRuin2012 2 months ago
Being black is genetic being gay is a choice of sexuality. That's why its called... (wait 4 it) homosexuality!
sinistavoicez 2 months ago
@sinistavoicez So you're saying that you chose to be heterosexual and that you forced your body to be hormonally attracted to the opposite sex when you went through puberty?
Booncier 2 months ago 2
I'm sorry but you simply don't make sense. A situation where a Christian couple wants to print "anti-gay" literature is disanalogous to a situation where Christian business owners won't serve someone BECAUSE they're gay. In one situation someone is not served because of what they want to print, in the other someone is disallowed service because of who they are. Totally different.
uberhikari 2 months ago 2
@uberhikari
"In one situation someone is not served because of what they want to print, in the other someone is disallowed service because of who they are."
Now THAT doesn't make sense. In both examples, someone wanted to print something. If you want to make the "who they are" argument, then christian is who the christian couple are (is). MOSt christians do not agree with the gay lifestyle & should not not be forced to recognize it.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@UHeardMe1stTime You seem to be confused. They HAVE to recognize it in certain contexts. That's what Brown vs Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are all about. You cannot refuse someone service because of who they are. If you are a business you can't discriminate. Period. Now, if you want to argue that discrimination should be legal you better be prepared to take down the constitution and federal anti-discrimination laws.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
Women's gyms can refuse to let men join or even ENTER the building. That's discrimination. Private businesses can discriminate but most don't because it would hurt their business & they would lose out on potential customers.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Again, you're simply wrong. 1) Whether or not a business CAN discriminate and whether or not they DO, are two different things. Under federal laws they can't discriminate. 2) Various state legislatures have already passed laws allowing female only gyms. But you do raise an interesting question, so I'll have to think about this more.
uberhikari 2 months ago
But isn't saying that people should allow other to discriminate against them? With the gay couple you used before, by them being denied use of that printing shop it is discrimination, that's why they sued. If you want to own a public business you don't have the right to alienate groups of people because you personally don't care for them. That's for your house. People have the right to not be "okay" with homosexuality, but when homosexuals are denied basic civil liberties that's a problem.
MelinaPendulum 2 months ago 3
@MelinaPendulum "If you want to own a ...." ITs not a public business , like the library is owned by the public through tax dollars, the business is open to the public, but it is not owned by the majority of the public. Since it is not owned by all of the public, why should the public have a right to dictate who is allowed on a business and who isn't rather than the business owner?
Pentazoid111 2 months ago
@MelinaPendulum
Plenty of other printers they could've gone to. The only reason I can see them suing is if they were verbally assaulted during the process of being denied service in front of other customers. There's gotta be more to the story than " denied service"
MrRossT1 2 months ago
@MelinaPendulum It's not a problem at all. Homosexuality is not a gender and never will be. If Homosexuals don't want to be denied "basic civil liberties" then stop behaving like fags. Problem solved.
On3Thought 2 months ago
Good vid! I Agree and I'm glad you've decided to stay with the classic theme of this channel and not show yourself in your vids here. I dig the mystery.
noblesiner 2 months ago
@bgrim2008, the black community? If only there was one. The infrastructure was destroyed some time ago. This why you get what you see today. Don't blame "male homosexuality" on "feminism." Feminism is about women, the best you'd get is a male respectful & comfortable around women. His sexual inclination would not be influenced in any way from it. Now hangin with the boyz, well ...LOL!
ohpuhleeeze 2 months ago
This is DISGUSTING
BiGMANJOE32 2 months ago
i understand what you mean by saying that no parent wants their kid to be transgender and it would take parents a wile to get use to it cuz Imagen if it was the opposite Imagen if a parent desired to become transgender how would the children feel about that and Imagen how hard it would be for a child to accept their mom becoming a dude or their dad becoming a woman
Samuel115s 2 months ago
Thug Culture and the Feminist/Homosexual Agenda is destroying the black community (what's left of it anyway).
bgrim2008 2 months ago
Knowing the litigious atmosphere of the entire USA, those printers should have been really slick. Simple answer "We have too many jobs and are unable to do yours." and recommend another printer. True everyone has the right to choose what jobs they'll do, or who they hire, yet, they still gotta be slick about it. Just like the "I'm sorry the position has already been filled" statement.
MrRossT1 2 months ago
@MrRossT1 Well thanks for giving people pointers on how to discriminate without being caught. It is simply not true that "everyone has the right to choose what jobs they'll do." That's certainly not what Brown vs Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says. Public businesses are subject to federal anti-discrimination laws. Period.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
Printing gay literature was against that x-tian couple's religion. We have freedom of religion in this country right? The gay couple can go to another printer. Forcing people to comply with certain beliefs gives gays a bad wrap.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@UHeardMe1stTime You're reasoning is fallacious. We do have freedom of religion in this country, but it's the freedom to practice whatever religion we want or not to practice a religion at all without outside interference. It does not mean that you can use your religion to discriminate against other people. Based on your reasoning Muslims can simply deny service to Christians on the grounds that they're infidels.
uberhikari 2 months ago 2
@uberhikari
"Based on your reasoning Muslims can simply deny service to Christians on the grounds that they're infidels."
People should be free to associate & disassociate with whomever they please.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime "People should be free to associate & disassociate with whomever they please."
In their personal lives - absolutely! At work - hell no! My boss would be pissed as hell if I told a customer that I rejected a potential sale from them due to their sexual orientation and/or race and I would definitely get fired!
Booncier 2 months ago
@Booncier
That's why you gotta be slick and pass that customer onto another co-worker who will deal with them.:)
MrRossT1 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime People like you disturb me. You seem to not understand what a pluralistic democracy is, what the constitution is and what it allows and disallows. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the country in which you live. I'm honestly shocked that you are arguing FOR disregarding the constitution and allowing people to discriminate against other people. Are you telling me that you would have advocated for Plessy vs Ferguson?
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
The couple had their right to freedom of religion infringed upon. Homosexuality is against their religion & they did not wish to support it in any way. The couple could have gone to another business.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime People don't have a religious right to discriminate against someone else. What don't you understand about this? Why can't you seem to understand that the constitution allows you to believe whatever you want but does not allow you to act in accordance with those beliefs when they interfere with someone else constitutional rights and civil liberties? Again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "freedom of religion" means.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
What I'm telling you is that the gay couple wanted to force the christian couple to do something that they see as being against their religion. People should not be forced to associate with people that they don't want to associate with. Bringing up court cases & the constitution is irrelevant because I am telling you what I would like to see happen. So if you want to debate me on why you think what I'm saying is a bad idea, fine. But a debate about what laws say, not interested.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Freedom of religion means no one can force you to practice another religion and no one can impede your ability to practice your religion, but your right to practice a religion stops at my civil liberties. The constitution inherently places a legal check on everyone's actions with regard to religion. If your argument were true people could claim my religion allows me to murder and if you don't allow me to murder then you've taken away my freedom of religion. See?
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
My argument is about leaving people free to live their lives as they please & not be forced to do things they do not want to do. Your murder example is not valid because the murdered person would not be free to live their lives as they please. Forget all these legal terms & court cases because it's distracting you from what I'm saying. I'm saying people should be free to associate with whom they please.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime You are flat out contradicting yourself. You keep saying that people should be allowed to associate with whom they please, not realizing that refusing to associate with certain people i.e. refusing them service at your place of business leads to an ideology which makes discrimination permissible. And discrimination has a direct effect on others. The only way you can believe what you say is if you antecedently accept discrimination as morally permissible.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
Just because you don't agree with what someone says doesn't mean you should silence their freedom of speech. And just because you don't agree with someone not wanting to associate with black people (for example) doesn't mean you should force them to associate with blacks. Why should someone be forced to associate with people they don't want to?
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime I haven't taken away your freedom of speech, you can still type can't you? I never even said you should be quiet, I simply said you don't deserve to live in a democracy.
Second you need to learn reading comprehension. Here is what I said in my last post verbatim: "You are free not to associate with blacks if you don't want to, but if your non-association includes discrimination, then that can't be allowed." I never claimed you had to associate with blacks.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
"I haven't taken away your freedom of speech, you can still type can't you? I never even said you should be quiet, I simply said you don't deserve to live in a democracy."
When I said that I wasn't talking about you & me. That was part of my argument. Read the whole passage.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@uberhikari
If a business had a policy not to serve blacks, how long do you think they would stay in business? They would probably get boycotted out of business. Also since businesses are in it for the money, you don't have to worry about too many businesses turning down potential customers. So there's no need for a law to force businesses to serve anyone anymore.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime This argument is fallacious. Discrimination is morally impermissible, this is a moral debate not an economic one. A society that allows people to discriminate against other members of society is unjust. There are plenty of businesses that would discriminate against Muslims, for example, irrespective of the economic consequences.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
This is why the law is flawed & why i'm not debating about the law. While granting someone else "civil liberties" you take away the other party's rights to associate with whom they please.
Everybody should be left free & the market will take care of discrimination.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Now I see that there's no hope for you, you're an absolute retard. If it was true that free markets precluded discrimination, then the legal abolition of segregation would not have been necessary. You're empirically denied. You can only make asinine claims like this because the law has already abolished discrimination. I would have like to see you make this argument in the 1950's, you would have been laughed at.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
"absolute retard"
I don't allow for name calling. I'll let you have that one free. Next time you're outta here.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime But I want to associate with you, and if you block me you'll be taking away my "right" to associate with whom I please. Do you see how silly your argument is? What about stalkers who want to associate with the people they stalk? Your view is completely unrealistic and naive. Society is about balancing competing goods; people don't and can't have an unequivocal so-called "right" to either associate or disassociate with whomever they please.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
" I want to associate with you, and if you block me you'll be taking away my "right" to associate with whom I please."
But I don't want to associate with you. See it has to be MUTUAL.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Why does it have to be mutual? The only thing you've been talking about is someone should be allowed to associate or not associate with whomever they please. It is a fact that if you disallow someone to associate with someone that they want to associate with, then you are taking away their "right" to associate with someone that they want to associate with. Your argument is a sword that cuts both ways. Are you now amending your argument?
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
Because if it's not mutual then someone is being force to associate with someone they don't wish to & I'm been saying that no one should be forced to do that from the beginning.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Congratulations you have now reached the pentacle of circular reasoning.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime You either believe that everyone has an unequivocal so-called "right" to associate or not associate with whomever they want or they don't; it's a zero-sum game. If you don't believe people have this unequivocal right then every argument you've made up until now is void, and you'll have to concede that this "right" can be limited in light of other competing goods.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
Again, you're getting hung up on legal terms. So, I'll state it without the "legalese". I don't think anyone should be forced to associate with anyone they do not wish to. There.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Why?
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
Why what? I can't read your mind.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UHeardMe1stTime This is the claim you made: "I don't think anyone should be forced to associate with anyone they do not wish to."
I'm asking you why this is true.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime And I'm asking this within the specific context of discrimination. I'm asking why people should be allowed to discriminate against other people. I want a moral argument, not an economic or practical one.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
"I'm asking why people should be allowed to discriminate against other people."
Give an example & I'll tell you why or why not. That's too wide open of a question when we are restricted to 500 characters.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Use the example of the gay couple and the printing press. From a moral standpoint why should the couple who owns the printing press be allowed to discriminate against gay people?
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
The x-tian couple DOES NOT believe in homosexuality (HS for short) so they did not want to print invitations for a gay marriage. Since there are other printing presses whether in that city or online, the gay couple can find another printer who is willing. But if the x-tian couple is FORCED to do the job, their freedom of association is taken away. Nobody loses their rights if the gay couple goes somewhere else. They can get their gay invitations elsewhere.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Again, I want a moral argument, not a practical one. I don't care if they can get their invitations somewhere else. I'm asking you to give me a MORAL argument about why people should be allowed to discriminate against others.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
1. I don't have to give you the type argument you specify. I can just give you MY reason regardless of what category (moral, legal) you want to file it under. 2. That is a moral argument. The x-tian couple finds HS morally WRONG.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime The way I see it, the irony in the whole situation is that by the Christian printing press rejecting the gay couple, the Christians are ALREADY not staying true to their beliefs anyway for doing that. God is all about unconditional love, loving everyone, love thy neighbor and even thy enemy too as well. Discriminating against someone isn't very Christian-like behavior from the get-go.
Booncier 2 months ago
@Booncier
Whoa, buddy. They weren't denied service "for being gay". They were denied service because the printers did not agree with the print job. I'm willing to bet that if the gay couple had come in wanting to print announcements for feeding the homeless, the job would have been accepted.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Your argument suffers from a very common logical fallacy known as begging the question (see wikipedia).
This is your argument: it's bad for the Christian couple to be forced to print the invitations because their freedom of association would be taken away. Yet it is precisely this freedom of association that I am asking you justify in moral terms; you can't presuppose the existence of a moral principle I am asking you to justify.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
"it is precisely this freedom of association that I am asking you justify in moral terms"
Because no one should be forced to be around people they don't wanna. Imagine if you were forced to be around racists or pedophiles. You may not always agree with people's choice of association but if you want freedom of association you should defend EVERYONE'S freedom of association. Same thing with freedom of speech. Defend it all, or defend none of it.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Like I said before, you have reached the pentacle of circular reasoning. People shouldn't be forced to associate with people they don't want to because they shouldn't be forced to be around people they don't want to. Classic circular reasoning: A is justified by B, B is justified by A.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari Lol, I know right. Silly, isn't it? I'm starting to wonder if this person has ever had a job or not. When your in the workplace out there in the real world you're bound to have a co-worker or two who you don't want to associate with, but you're forced to anyway because it's part of the job and you have to work together with people you don't necessarily like in order to get the job task done.
Booncier 2 months ago
@Booncier (Continue)
I would be an unemployed bum on the street if I rejected every job offer because I didn't want to associate myself with my co-workers.
Booncier 2 months ago
@uberhikari
"People shouldn't be forced to associate with people they don't want to because they shouldn't be forced to be around people they don't want to. "
I didn't say that. YOU did. Are you expecting me to tell you why people should not be forced to associate with those they do not want to? You're like the toddler who keeps asking why every time you give an answer. I've already explained my position. The gay couple can go somewhere else so no one loses their freedom.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UHeardMe1stTime One day you'll understand that you have to give coherent reasons for why you believe what you believe. I'm asking you why is was moral for the Christian couple to turn them away in the first place. You can choose not to answer this, as you've alluded to in a previous post, but without this justification your argument is morally suspect.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime You can't even address my arguments anyone, you just have a whole bunch of assertions that you can't even defend with argumentation. Quite frankly I don't care what you believe, I care about your arguments, and right now they're about as silly as they can get. You keep claiming that we're not talking about the law, and yet here you are talking about the "right" to associate with whomever you please, LOL. Where did you get this "right" from?
uberhikari 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime I wish you were a black woman in MIssissippi in the 1890's making this argument. They would have put you in an insane asylum. Free markets take care of discrimination, the best laugh I've had in a long time.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
"I wish you were a black woman in MIssissippi in the 1890's making this argument."
Um, go back to where I said ANYMORE. In TODAY'S society, the free market would probably take care of MOST discrimination.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Yeah because people really want to live in a society where MOST people are not discriminated against. Your position is foolish. Are you really arguing that the price of allowing people to unequivocally associate or disassociate with whomever they please is injustice? You are admitting that your position allows for injustice? How could you ever believe that your position is morally defensible, unless you believe in some form of utilitarianism?
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
Here's what i'm saying. If i own a burger business & I don't want to serve people uberhikari, you can go to another burger business. But if I am forced to serve you, my choice is taken away. That's not fair to me. Association should be MUTUAL.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@uberhikari
TYPO.I meant to type
* I don't want to serve people NAMED uberhikari,
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@uberhikari "I wish you were a black woman in MIssissippi in the 1890's making this argument. " There were no free markets in the South, in the 1890's. Jim Crow was imposed onto southern society by the government. There is a thirty page economics paper published the economics journal review where it is written that there were street car trolleys lobbying the government to end racial segregation because it was economically hurting them as a business. Jim Crow was not a free market
Pentazoid111 2 months ago
@Pentazoid111 Even if I grant your position, which I don't, that still doesn't mean that a group of people couldn't refuse to serve another group of people within a free market. If enough people thought the cost of economic consequences did not outweigh their racist beliefs then could still discriminate against others within a free market. My argument still stands; free markets don't preclude discrimination.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari You can not grant my position all you want, I can demonstrate to you , using historical records , that jim crow was sanctioned by the government , because IT was against the law for people to make business associations with people of another race and free markets are based on free associations.People can discriminate and they should be allowed to. Fraternities and sororities are examples of discrimination. You discriminate when you choose certain freindships and romances
Pentazoid111 2 months ago
@uberhikari I never made the claim that free markets don't preclude discrimination, but based on historical US records, governments are better at wielding racial segregation in businesses than the free market. Before the civil war, in free US states, there were plenty of businesses that allowed racial integration , most notably saloons and dance clubs. Housing segregation was heavily promoted by the FHA after ww2, a government agency that subsidized housing.
Pentazoid111 2 months ago
@Pentazoid111 Are you a historian? Can you recommend some books or other articles on this? I'm not sure if I agree, but I simply don't have enough historical knowledge about this to make an argument either way. Take the case of Wal Mart, for example, they have been discriminating against women for a long time and they haven't been economically punished and we have a free market.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Moreover, everyone is endowed with reason and rationality and, therefore, possesses dignity and rights as a human being. These rights exist irrespective of any legal context, but it is only within the context of law that they can be protected and enforced. If you believe that the law has no bearing on this discussion then you don't understand how democracy works, and quite frankly you don't deserve to live in one.
uberhikari 2 months ago
@uberhikari
When you use all these buzz words like democracy, & constitution, you speaking as if I believe these things are the holy grail. The constitution & democracy were made by fallible humans so they are not perfect. So stop treating them like the bible & listen to my argument. I'm not arguing what the law says or doesn't say. I'm saying my opinion of how things should be.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Again, if you don't believe in the ethical principles outlined in the constitution, if you don't believe in pluralistic democracy, then why are you here? Second, I never claimed that the constitution was the "holy grail," stop putting words in my mouth. The constitution has been amended several times in the past, and rightly so. The constitution was not, is not, and never will be a perfect document.
uberhikari 2 months ago