Wait, what PM, no that's not what I meant by message, my bad.I'll wait for your PM if you're still sending it, if not I'll just post in here
Wait, what PM, no that's not what I meant by message, my bad.I'll wait for your PM if you're still sending it, if not I'll just post in here
Gonna be honest with you that's a horrible analogy. Discrimination is wrong no matter what.Would appreciate if you just answer the question
Jumping to conclusions is pretty common on hereI'm sorry if everyone other than you thought that was anything more than a question.
What makes it invalid? The fact that it's not a social construct?Besides, my point is the no-shirt, no service analogy isn't really valid.
I never approved of itGonna be honest with you that's a horrible analogy. Discrimination is wrong no matter what.
Whist I agree that businesses make their own rules, I do not agree with discrimination which is why I said I'm indifferent. The whole point of me asking that is to see why other people would think a man (per example) should not be served in a restaurant for doing something harmless not wearing a shirt when it is the belief of the restaurant that customers should be wearing shirtsThen what was your point? O -o
What about Missouri? Their State Senate just passed an anti-gay religious liberty bill last month.I'm guessing you've never been to Mississippi? Not shocking, that's probably the most backwards place in my country. Extremely racist and closed minded.
The fact that being gay is a part of someone's identity now makes it invalid. Gay people can get married, and are citizens of the U.S.Jumping to conclusions is pretty common on here
What makes it invalid? The fact that it's not a social construct?
I never approved of it
What about Missouri? Their State Senate just passed an anti-gay religious liberty bill last month.
Had me a quick read and overall I'll just agree since apparently the no shoes no shirt service applies to all parties (even though some states don't have to follow the law.) Wasn't looking to really debate this anyway, was interested in the answer to my question which was unanswered hereThe fact that being gay is a part of someone's identity now makes it invalid. Gay people can get married, and are citizens of the U.S.
Putting on a shirt is more of a trivial choice. It really depends on whether you think gay people are born gay or simply act that way. And since majority believe they are born that way, it makes sense that denying them service is taking away a right.
Nobody argues about being shirtless because as far as 99.9999% of America know, that's based on a whim. I guess it really depends on the reasoning of denying service, and they have to be looked at separately.
I see, interesting.I didn't know, definitely not surprising either. I still consider Mississippi worst overall place, at least Kansas City wasn't that bad, but Missouri is definitely top 5 worst.
I will not rest until us blacks can enter a restaurant without being looked with disgust at. I will not rest until the day i can enter a store without them assuming i want to steal something.
You are gonna be one tired black guy. >-0
Lmao, derp mode: savageI see, interesting.