Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Who's in?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4746095/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm in if dback is buying.

Spoiler: show

As long as he can act straight.

Baldy wrote:

I'm in if dback is buying.

Spoiler: show

As long as he can act straight.

Dback doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

I'm thinking this guy just bought himself a lifetime supply of gay patrons.

Fabulous!

93henfan wrote:I'm thinking this guy just bought himself a lifetime supply of gay patrons.

```````

He not so dumb

AZGrizFan wrote:

Baldy wrote:

I'm in if dback is buying.

Spoiler: show

As long as he can act straight.

Dback doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

I would bring a picture from a CS.com get together and bet him a free lunch versus a double-priced lunch he can't pick out the gay dude.

Love all the hate from the left

It should be noted that refusing to serve a gay customer appears to be legal in Oklahoma. Although the state protects people from being turned away from businesses for their race, gender or religion, it does not offer that protection for sexual orientation.

One thing that perplexes me is that most people cannot be convinced that it should not be illegal for a privately owned business to refuse to serve anybody for any reason. Engaging in commerce, on either side of the transaction, is a right. A person should be able to refuse to deal with another person on the selling side just like a person should be able to refuse to deal with another person on the purchasing side. It should no more be illegal for a restaurant owner to say he or she will not deal with people because, say, they are Black than it is illegal for someone who wants to buy bread to say they won't buy it from the corner grocery store because the owner is Asian.

A fundamental right has been abridged by Civil Rights law. And it's a shame that most people can't see that. You have no legitimate right to force someone else to deal with you.

JohnStOnge wrote:

It should be noted that refusing to serve a gay customer appears to be legal in Oklahoma. Although the state protects people from being turned away from businesses for their race, gender or religion, it does not offer that protection for sexual orientation.

One thing that perplexes me is that most people cannot be convinced that it should not be illegal for a privately owned business to refuse to serve anybody for any reason. Engaging in commerce, on either side of the transaction, is a right. A person should be able to refuse to deal with another person on the selling side just like a person should be able to refuse to deal with another person on the purchasing side. It should no more be illegal for a restaurant owner to say he or she will not deal with people because, say, they are Black than it is illegal for someone who wants to buy bread to say they won't buy it from the corner grocery store because the owner is Asian.

A fundamental right has been abridged by Civil Rights law. And it's a shame that most people can't see that. You have no legitimate right to force someone else to deal with you.

True. But do you have a fundamental right to business any way you see fit?

Yes, it's his business and he can run it anyway he wants to.

It's not up to the government to tell him how to fail.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Yes

Woo hoo! See ya Wa State dept's of revenue, L&I, Employment Security, ecology, Regional Health District, Osha, etc........

In my opinion no one should even have to have a permit to engage in commerce on the selling side. Requiring any permit at all implies that you are dealing with a privilege rather than a right. And it's a right.

We have become numb to the situation because we are so accustomed at this point to the situation. But the situation is wrong. If one person wants to sell a good or service to another and the other wants to buy it government should have no business in that relationship. None whatsoever.

Now, if government wants to serve in an advisory role that's fine. If it wants to establish a program whereby it puts its stamp of approval on some businesses but not on others that's completely OK.

But telling someone that they can't engage in commerce on the selling side because they haven't been cleared and/or approved to do so by government is very, very wrong.

Why is it a right and not a privilege?

JohnStOnge wrote:In my opinion no one should even have to have a permit to engage in commerce on the selling side. Requiring any permit at all implies that you are dealing with a privilege rather than a right. And it's a right.

We have become numb to the situation because we are so accustomed at this point to the situation. But the situation is wrong. If one person wants to sell a good or service to another and the other wants to buy it government should have no business in that relationship. None whatsoever.

Now, if government wants to serve in an advisory role that's fine. If it wants to establish a program whereby it puts its stamp of approval on some businesses but not on others that's completely OK.

But telling someone that they can't engage in commerce on the selling side because they haven't been cleared and/or approved to do so by government is very, very wrong.

And yet you think the government should step in and prevent gays from marrying. Fucking hypocrite.

JohnStOnge wrote:In my opinion no one should even have to have a permit to engage in commerce on the selling side. Requiring any permit at all implies that you are dealing with a privilege rather than a right. And it's a right.

We have become numb to the situation because we are so accustomed at this point to the situation. But the situation is wrong. If one person wants to sell a good or service to another and the other wants to buy it government should have no business in that relationship. None whatsoever.

Now, if government wants to serve in an advisory role that's fine. If it wants to establish a program whereby it puts its stamp of approval on some businesses but not on others that's completely OK.

But telling someone that they can't engage in commerce on the selling side because they haven't been cleared and/or approved to do so by government is very, very wrong.

Wanna buy some smack?

Wanna buy some smack?

Exactly.

And how are you posting when you are dead?

JohnStOnge wrote:

Wanna buy some smack?

Exactly.

And how are you posting when you are dead?

I am the walrus.

There is no death John. Energy is conserved.

I'm going to haunt D1B until he sends my widow the money for the high grade nugs he still owes on.

JohnStOnge wrote:In my opinion no one should even have to have a permit to engage in commerce on the selling side. Requiring any permit at all implies that you are dealing with a privilege rather than a right. And it's a right.

We have become numb to the situation because we are so accustomed at this point to the situation. But the situation is wrong. If one person wants to sell a good or service to another and the other wants to buy it government should have no business in that relationship. None whatsoever.

Now, if government wants to serve in an advisory role that's fine. If it wants to establish a program whereby it puts its stamp of approval on some businesses but not on others that's completely OK.

But telling someone that they can't engage in commerce on the selling side because they haven't been cleared and/or approved to do so by government is very, very wrong.

Here's to food poisoning!!

Why is it a right and not a privilege?

Because it's something you can do with another consenting adult unless someone prevents you from doing it. If I want to sell a hamburger I can offer it for sale. Someone else can freely come and buy it from me. It's a transaction between two free, consenting people. And you are not attacking anybody else. Yes, the person who buys the hamburger may be taking some risk. It might taste bad. It might have been temperature abused so that it's an illness risk. But he understands that or should understand it. Nobody is forcing him to buy it.

Here's to food poisoning!!

Thus the previous comment about it being OK for government to "validate" or "certify" something. There is nothing wrong at all with government having a system where it offers certification or validation. So government says to someone who sells food, "We will inspect you and give you our seal of approval if you pass so that people will know the food you sell is safe and that will help your business."

But a person should not have to get a permit to sell food to other people who choose to buy it regardless. That's between the person selling and the people buying. It's none of government's legitimate business.