What I believe

Cato wrote:Nope, because you aren't setting back and expecting the government to take care of you so you don't have to expend any effort on your own. Oh by the way, I don't blame you in the least for taking all the asistance you can, unlike 47% of the population you've paid for it and you've earned it. Also like you, I've written some large checks to the bloodsucking politicans so they could buy their votes from parasites. I have my last kid in school. I paid enough in Federal Tax alone to send him to school for 3 semesters, room, board, tuition, books, fees, and he whole works. However, he gets to borrow money so some one who has never lifted a finger gets a free ride.

I've been the same boat as you, unemployed and with a family. I didn't go crawling the politicians and expect them to pick up my bills so I could sit on my butt. I was off the 3 months and I hunted for a job everyday. I was lucky enough to begin again as a laborer and a trackman on the railroad on a temporary basis with no benefits. That was nearly 30 years ago and I have worked myself up through the ranks since.

Knucklehead, meet thy excuse making self.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:Nope, because you aren't setting back and expecting the government to take care of you so you don't have to expend any effort on your own. Oh by the way, I don't blame you in the least for taking all the asistance you can, unlike 47% of the population you've paid for it and you've earned it. Also like you, I've written some large checks to the bloodsucking politicans so they could buy their votes from parasites. I have my last kid in school. I paid enough in Federal Tax alone to send him to school for 3 semesters, room, board, tuition, books, fees, and he whole works. However, he gets to borrow money so some one who has never lifted a finger gets a free ride.

I've been the same boat as you, unemployed and with a family. I didn't go crawling the politicians and expect them to pick up my bills so I could sit on my butt. I was off the 3 months and I hunted for a job everyday. I was lucky enough to begin again as a laborer and a trackman on the railroad on a temporary basis with no benefits. That was nearly 30 years ago and I have worked myself up through the ranks since.

Knucklehead, meet thy excuse making self.

and Proud of it. At least I don't need to politicans to wipe my behind, unlike you.

As for the rest of your post, as usual you are reaching and grasping for straws, thus the bold faced lie and slander. Then again I guess when you really have no legitimate arguement, slander is all you do have.

No lie OR slander.

You said you will not condone that "type of behavior" [gayness]. That is why you won't rent to gays. Should we believe your attitude would be different if your business was owning a hospital instead of rental properties.

You just can't face the truth that you are a mean, judgmental person that wants the freedom to treat others as sub-humans, unfit to do business with.

Nope, no slander, just truth.

Willy, should we believe your attitude would be different if your business was owning and/or operating a Gay Nightclub, a "Toys for Queers" retail store or a Lessie and Fags Only Nudist Colony?

Or even a Homos of America Dating Service?

Question still stands, Willy, despite Sam's drivel.

SamCogar wrote:Willy, should we believe your attitude would be different if your business was owning and/or operating a Gay Nightclub, a "Toys for Queers" retail store or a Lessie and Fags Only Nudist Colony?

Or even a Homos of America Dating Service?

Sam, my attitude would be the same because I wouldn't own or work for a business like that.

TerryRC wrote:Question still stands, Willy, despite Sam's drivel.

Providing healthcare to a sick or injured individual has nothing to do with their sexual orientation or condoning it, even if they have a disease that is transmitted sexually. Your question is little more than a spoiled brat grasping at straws because you have no arguement. But know this, I do not believe in forcing anyone int he medical profession to perform procedures they disagree with.

If you want to discuss this, stick to the arguement at hand, which is what right have you or the government to force me to use my proeprty in a way I find repulsive.

Providing healthcare to a sick or injured individual has nothing to do with their sexual orientation or condoning it, even if they have a disease that is transmitted sexually. Your question is little more than a spoiled brat grasping at straws because you have no arguement. But know this, I do not believe in forcing anyone int he medical profession to perform procedures they disagree with.

I have no argument because you say so? I don't think so.

Willy, if you owned a hospital and the fed came in and said you have to let gay lifepartners have visitation rights for their terminally ill partners, you would not act any differently than if the fed steps in and says you must rent to gays

Same thing, the fed FORCING you to go against your beliefs.

If you owned the hospital, would you allow gay partners visitation rights, or would that be "condoning" that behavior?

Instead of accusing me of lies and slander [wrongly], just answer the question.

TerryRC wrote:Providing healthcare to a sick or injured individual has nothing to do with their sexual orientation or condoning it, even if they have a disease that is transmitted sexually. Your question is little more than a spoiled brat grasping at straws because you have no arguement. But know this, I do not believe in forcing anyone int he medical profession to perform procedures they disagree with.

I have no argument because you say so? I don't think so.

Willy, if you owned a hospital and the fed came in and said you have to let gay lifepartners have visitation rights for their terminally ill partners, you would not act any differently than if the fed steps in and says you must rent to gays

Same thing, the fed FORCING you to go against your beliefs.

If you owned the hospital, would you allow gay partners visitation rights, or would that be "condoning" that behavior?

Instead of accusing me of lies and slander [wrongly], just answer the question.

If I owned the hospital and the Fed came up to me and said I had to let same sex couples have vistation rights, I would tell the fed to go take their federal money and screw themselves. If the fed decided to take me to court I would close said hospital and I would make it quite public why, naming the politicians involved who created this mess to begin with.

My hospital, my rules. Now is that a good enough answer for you.

Oh by the way, you are still a slanderer and liar.

I don't see the benefit in calling folks slanderous liars, but Willy's point is clear. If the government can tell you what to do with your property, a vital protection of human rights is therefore denied.

Under communism, private property is abolished. The English common law idea of the Castle Doctrine is of great weight here--that government can tell me what to do primarily ends at my doorstep. They cannot come in and look about without darn good reason.

I simply do not have a human right to property. I cannot own as much as I'd like because I cannot afford it. Just as the owners of the really cool house up the bluff are under no compulsion (yet) to sell me their house for 60K, Willy should not be under compulsion to rent his property to people that he believes will sin in it. As for any gay couple, there are hundreds of thousands of landlords that would be more than happy to take their money. It is not as though the gay couple will not get shelter, it's merely that they will not get it from Willy.

Now I will never be in the landlord business for ten thousand reasons, yet I see that in property rights comes a host of other ones (including those enjoyed by gay people, by the way).

(including those enjoyed by gay people, by the way).

Yup, like their RIGHT to walk around freely and infect others with AIDS if they choose too. Which is a known KILLER of humans.

But I'm not allowed to walk around freely blowing cigarette smoke which is NOT a proven KILLER.

Sam,

Infecting someone with AIDS when you know that you have it is a crime, I believe.

As for second hand smoke, I agree with you that smokers have been unfairly mistreated, gay and straight smokers alike.

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

Infecting someone with AIDS when you know that you have it is a crime, I believe.

As for second hand smoke, I agree with you that smokers have been unfairly mistreated, gay and straight smokers alike.

But Michael, the former is "Arrestable after the fact", .....

the latter is "Arrestable before the fact".

Oh by the way, you are still a slanderer and liar.

Willy... name... one... example...

I said you would deny gay couples visitation rights.

It appears I was right.

You want to treat gays and unwed moms as second class citizens - to deny them things you would allow to "wholesome" people. It must be human to want someone to look down on.

I guess I'm human because I look down on self-righteous prigs like you.

Willy should not be under compulsion to rent his property to people that he believes will sin in it. As for any gay couple, there are hundreds of thousands of landlords that would be more than happy to take their money. It is not as though the gay couple will not get shelter, it's merely that they will not get it from Willy.

Really? What about in a town like Elizabeth (Wirt Co.), a town were all 12 rental properties might be owned by Willy-like people.

That would make that town closed to gays and unwed moms and their bastard offspring as a place to live, unless they can scrape up the money for a house and find a bank that will do business with their unwholesome persons...

Wow. Sounds like a baptist paradise...

The major problem that exists in this nation is that people think they have some god given right to tell another, what they can and can't say, what they can and can't think, and what they can and can't do with their property. Nothing on the face of the earth irritates me more than this mentality. I see this mentality in schools. I see it in the work place. I see it all through society and just be blunt I think this mentality sucks and those that have it have to be the most egotisitc and ignorant of people.

We are suppose to be a free society. The key and operative word is free. Free to think what we will. Free to say what we please and free to use our property, that which we have labored for as we desire. The only limitation being the infringement on another's life or liberty.

That brings us to the question at hand, does society have the right to force me to use my property in a manner I deem wrong. In other words to subscribe to policy to which I disagree. The answer to that, if you truly believe in liberty is No, society does not have that right.

Now this brings us to the case of me not renting or selling housing to a homosexual couple. Just as the homosexual couple has made the choice to be what they are, I have made the choice not to do anything that condones their lifestyle, because it find their lifestyle evil. We have both made choices and thus we bear the responsibility for both the rewards and consequences of those choices. They choose their lifestyle and I choose who I will and won't rent or sell housing to.

Does that mean there are places that may exist where a homosexual couple finds themselves not welcome? Yes, it does. Does it mean I may loose income? Yes, it does. We have each made choices based on our beliefs and have acted on those choices, willingly accepting what those choices bring. We have done so without the influence or force of government forcing either of us what we can and can't do. That is the beauty of a free society.

One last thought and I'm done. I have referred to TerryRC as a slanderer and liar because he has used examples he knows full well are false. If one goes back and looks at all the space we've wasted discussing this, you will find that he once brought up that I would refuse to sell food to a homosexual couple or I would refuse healthcare to a homosexual person or couple, both of which are bold faced lies not to mention off point. Additionally, Terry has no clue as to the thought I have had to put into this. He sees me as a bigot and homophobe because of my religious convictions, which is also false. He feels he has the right to force me to use my property in a manner contrary to those convictions, and then he preaches liberty. It cannot be both ways here. The fact is Terry and a number of others that post here have no clue what liberty is. They insist on focing their view of the world on everyone and they refer to that as liberty. The truth is it isn't liberty, that is tyranny.

I think it is time we face one simple fact. If we are going to be the land of the free then we cannot go around forcing people to participate in policy to which they disagree. Just as a homosexual couple should have the right to marry without government interference, I should have the right to use my property as I see it. Actually it comes down to this, we start staying out of each others affairs and adopt a "live and let live" attitude.

Cato