d21lewis said: Slippery slope. With this ruling and the recent refusal of service to Sarah Sanders, I feel that we're moving backwards. I'm black. My wife is white. What's to stop a restaurant from saying "Sorry. We don't serve interracial couples." What's to stop a store from saying "You blacks are nothing but trouble. I'm not selling you that gun." This is not good. Not good at all. Even if I disagree with somebody's lifestyle choices, religion, political views, etc. I still feel that their rights should not be compromised. |
I don't know. Probably cause the vast majority of people aren't racist. We don't need Big Brother or unions to protect from us the boogie man, we have social media. Don't like the way a business is handling things, get the message out there. People won't want to go to that establishment and it'll eventually close down.
Pemalite said:
Don't conflate two separate issues. That would be a logical fallacy and thus erroneous.
Doesn't prove anything? Are you serious? It completely proves that my assertions are correct. |
You can't really just respond with "logical fallacy" and think you won the argument. He makes a good point. There is little reason to compare us to the animal kingdom. We have different thought processes and most animals really have no morals, only survival instincts.
A duck doesn't rape a female duck for the same reason a human rapes. In the animal kingdom it is perfectly natural for certain species to eat their mate or their young, where we find it abhorrent if a human did. And an animal doesn't mate for the same reason humans do. There are instances when some species show what could be love, mainly with higher intelligent ones, but just because an animal mates for life doesn't mean that's what is being displayed. As he pointed out, they really might be dumb enough to think they are mating.