or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by TBell

Rockstar is not considered a patent troll. The patents are owned by practicing entities, and the previous owner, also a practing entity sought licenses for the patents.
White guys are discriminated against all the time. All the world's problems are blamed on white guys. Affirmative action discriminates. More women are going to college then men, yet there are all kinds of assistance programs for women but not white men at colleges. 
 Ask yourself this though, why was the bill needed at all? There is no state law preventing people from denying to do business with another person for any reason at all anyway. This law actually gives religious people more freedom of choice then non-religious people. 
 Good stuff, but my comment was not an example of improperly pointing your comment out as an Ad Hominem attack. You attempted to undermine a person's argument by referring to him  as a white heterosexual male thereby attacking the characteristics of the person to deflect from his argument.  I rarely point out an Ad Hominem attack, but your remark was a pretty textbook example. 
 An Ad Hominem fallacy. 
It was NOT Arizonia. It was New Mexico. Anderson Cooper had one of the Arizonia Senators on his show who is a proponent of this Arizonia bill. It was made clear you could already turn away a gay person as a business person in Arizonia. This legislation was not needed to do that. The Senator also could not cite one example of there being a problem in Arizonia with a business who wanted to turn somebody away someone for being gay on religious grounds from not being able to...
 I am against libertarianism because extreme forms of anything generally don't work. Your view on what a conservative means also seems a stretch. Those who are conservative tend to move slowly and not want to upset the apple cart. A conservative libertarian seems a bit of an oxymoron.  More importantly, however, to the extent I understand your view, it doesn't seem to be libertarian. Libertarians generally want governments to get involved in people's affairs as little as...
  See this is a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the issues. There is no law in Arizonia prohibiting a person from discriminating against a person because he or she is gay. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay person, he or she does not have to do so. That is the current state of affairs. The law, however, actively promoted that people can discriminate against somebody because he or she was gay provided there was a religious reason. There was...
This is not even close to analogous. A business offers a service or product, and others based on that service or product decide to use the business or not. Your example involves forcing a business to offer certain products and has nothing to do with a business selecting customers. Further, it is already legal for a business in Arizona to elect not to serve a person who is gay for no reason at all. No religious grounds needed. The point of this needless legislation is...
Why sweat the details?
New Posts  All Forums: