US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
OrbitalDawn

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,031
Unhappy438 said:
Ya but Konfab is talking about a law where you can force someone to buy a product based on discrimination. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

konfab said:
Thanks for finding that.

So using those protected group clauses, would a shop be able force a customer to buy a product from them if the shop found the customer didn't want to buy the product because of the shop owner's sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

konfab said:
It is a logical extension of anti-discrimination laws that target the interactions of businesses.
Click to expand...

iJoG4Ks.jpg


Dude, no.

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

Read the first two sentences.
 
konfab

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
cerebus said:
No it's not. Nobody can be forced to buy anything they don't want to. Your argument is a fundamentally moronic cul-de-sac that you've dragged us all into because you can't form a cogent thought.
Click to expand...

So if I can't be forced to buy something I don't want, why should I not be allowed to sell what I don't want to.

Why don't you explain that one logically instead of calling me names?

Oh yes and this part:
cerebus said:
No it's not. Nobody can be forced to buy anything they don't want to.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Individual_mandate
 
Last edited:
RanzB

RanzB

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
29,562
konfab said:
So if I can't be forced to buy something I don't want, why should I not be allowed to sell what I don't want to.
Click to expand...

:crylaugh: :crylaugh: :crylaugh:
:crylaugh:
:crylaugh:
:crylaugh: :crylaugh: :crylaugh:
 
Unhappy438

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
24,915
konfab said:
Theoretically you could use that to justify discrimination on your own property.
Click to expand...

Now i've lost you again, what has that got to do with forcing someone to purchase something? I note your usage of the term theoretically and not practical.
 
konfab

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
Unhappy438 said:
Now i've lost you again, what has that got to do with forcing someone to purchase something? I note your usage of the term theoretically and not practical.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been tested yet, which is why I use the word theoretically. Practically it is easily possible as some people are quite happy to allow the government to force others to purchase things they don't want or need.
 
SlinkyMike

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
9,578
NarrowBandFtw said:
Fascists are known for suppressing dissenting views or opinions ... you know, like refusing to serve someone in a restaurant because you happen to disagree with their views ... irony much?
Click to expand...

It's not about views, it's about willingly supporting a regime that cages children. Get it straight.

NarrowBandFtw said:
The irony hits just keep coming :crylaugh:

First fascism now unlimited tolerance begetting intolerance; which is precisely why Trump won in the first place, liberals lost the f-ing plot with PC-BS, time to vote in a counterweight and here we are ...
Click to expand...

We'll see. I believe that children in cages will prove to be the line few are willing to cross.
 
Last edited:
Unhappy438

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
24,915
konfab said:
It hasn't been tested yet, which is why I use the word theoretically. Practically it is easily possible as some people are quite happy to allow the government to force others to purchase things they don't want or need.
Click to expand...

Its easily possible to force someone to buy something but its never been done before :wtf:. Yeah if it was easily possible it would be done, that schits a gold mine.
 
konfab

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
Unhappy438 said:
Its easily possible to force someone to buy something but its never been done before :wtf:. Yeah if it was easily possible it would be done, that schits a gold mine.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been done before for prevention of discrimination. It has been done for other stuff like Obamacare.
 
Unhappy438

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
24,915
konfab said:
Now they are not because of Trump.

Before then, it was either buying healthcare or paying a fine.
Click to expand...

So you mean you had a choice and you weren't forced?

Not to mention the fine was on average $470 a year and

For most unpaid taxes, there are a variety of ways that the IRS can recoup their money. But the text of the ACA is very clear in stating that taxpayers who don’t pay their ACA penalty are not subject to levies, liens, or criminal prosecution.

The only way that the IRS can collect the ACA penalty is if you pay it voluntarily, or if you’re owed a refund. In the latter case, the IRS deducts*the penalty from your refund.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/faq...for-not-having-health-insurance-is-this-true/
 
Last edited:
SlinkyMike

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
9,578
konfab said:
Can I put Obama in that range?
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article213525764.html
Click to expand...

Yes.

Its wrong no matter who implements it.

This is what conservatives seem to be unable to grasp - for once it isn't about which side wins, it's about stopping something fscking evil.

You go on and on about 'whatabout when x did it?' but this simply betrays the fact that you care more about your side being right than the fact that we have toddlers in concentration camps right now in 2018.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top