Student Sues Professor

It is shameless the way you flirt with me, Sammy...

TerryRC wrote: No, it is exactly the same thing. You are grasping at straws again. Either is the taking of the fruits of one's labor and foring one to comnply with ho w it is used.

No, it is not.

That the best answer you can com up with. That's like arguing with my kids.

TerryRC wrote: I also have rights. Among those rights is the right to associate with whom I please. That means if I don't desire to rent to a homosexual couple thenit is tyranny to foce me to rent to them.

You do NOT have the right to discriminate.
If you are open to the public, that means ALL of the public, not just the bit you deem worthy.

Try and refuse service to some one because they are a darkie. See where that gets you.

And it still remain tyranny to use the force of law to make me rent or sell to whom I ahve no desire to rent or sell, be they black or homosexual or little green men from Mars.

TerryRC wrote: This isn't a civil rights issue. I'm not denying anyone their rights. Just because I choose not to rent the property I bought and paided for and pay taxes on to them, denies them nothing. They are more than welcome to go elsewhere and rent or buy.

That may be the stupidest thing I have seen you write. It isn't a civil rights issue?

I'm denying anyone anything. I choose not to associate with homosexuals. I'm not stopping you or anyone else from doing it. I'm not using the force of law to shove my views on anyone else. All I'm doing is execising my right to associate with whom I please, which is a building block of liberty.

TerryRC wrote: By the way, what is your limited extent? Is it until you are forced to participate in something to which you disagree?

I don't believe in affirmative action or hate crime legislation.

But yet you bleive in forcing me to associate with those I don't have desire to assoicate. That's kinds of hypocritical.

That the best answer you can com up with. That's like arguing with my kids.

You compared civil rights laws to taxes. Make a better analogy and I'll bite.

And it still remain tyranny to use the force of law to make me rent or sell to whom I ahve no desire to rent or sell, be they black or homosexual or little green men from Mars.

Sorry, you can't make gays sit at the back of the bus.

I'm denying anyone anything. I choose not to associate with homosexuals. I'm not stopping you or anyone else from doing it. I'm not using the force of law to shove my views on anyone else. All I'm doing is execising my right to associate with whom I please, which is a building block of liberty.

So is equal treatment under the law.

Your right to be a bigot doesn't trump their right to receive goods and services.

Like I said, see what happens if you own a restaurant and refuse service to someone because they are a negro or asian (or gay)?

If you are open to the public, you are open to the public, you don't get to discriminate.

But yet you bleive in forcing me to associate with those I don't have desire to assoicate. That's kinds of hypocritical.

If you serve the public, you may have to associate with a homosexual.

What you call "associating", I call "looking" at. You think gays have the right to exist as long as you don't have to look at them. Sorry. You don't have the right to be "not offended".

And you don't have the right to be "not infected with HIV/AIDS".

And you don't have the right to be "not infected with HIV/AIDS".

Or antibiotic resistant TB. Or antibiotic resistant strep. Or typhoid. Or hanta virus...

What is your point?

Terry,

Where is the "right to receive goods and services" in the Constitution?

I read equal protection under the law, but I don't read "right to receive goods and services." I do see property rights protected in the 5th and 14th amendments, which you seem to oppose when you tell people what they must do with their property.

TerryRC wrote:

Sorry, you can't make gays sit at the back of the bus.

And you have no right to demand I use my property in a manner I to which I object.

TerryRC wrote:
So is equal treatment under the law.

Your right to be a bigot doesn't trump their right to receive goods and services.

Like I said, see what happens if you own a restaurant and refuse service to someone because they are a negro or asian (or gay)?

I'm not using the force of law to deny anyone anything. I don't give a hoot what another person does. If you want to rent to or sell you home to a homosexual couple do it. I'm not stopping you or anyone else for that matter. There in is the difference between me and you. You demand I support policy to which I disagree and you demand the law bind me to doing so. I on the other hand do not avocate the use fo the force of law. I am for you doing whatever your little heart desires. This is the issue you have never answered.

TerryRC wrote:
If you are open to the public, you are open to the public, you don't get to discriminate.

If you serve the public, you may have to associate with a homosexual.

What you call "associating", I call "looking" at. You think gays have the right to exist as long as you don't have to look at them. Sorry. You don't have the right to be "not offended".

If a person chooses to be a homosexual, so be it, that's their choice. With their choice comes both reward and consequences. We all have to accept that. To force me to participate in policy to which I disagree, is still tyranny, nothing that you have said changes that.

I'm not using the force of law to deny anyone anything.

So if you owned a lunch counter, and some gay folks came in, and you refused to serve them, but they staged a sit-in and refused to leave, you would not call on the law to help you remove them from the premises?

ziggy wrote:

I'm not using the force of law to deny anyone anything.

So if you owned a lunch counter, and some gay folks came in, and you refused to serve them, but they staged a sit-in and refused to leave, you would not call on the law to help you remove them from the premises?

No, I would pretty well take care of that on my own. The only ones that would need the law would be the homosexuals.

I do have to admit you and Terry are grasping at every straw you can. I have never said the first thing about not serving a homosexual in a resturant sitting or denying them food. If you go back and read what I said, from the beginning, I do not and will not be involved in any activity that condones a homosexual's lifestyle. I will not rent or sell to a homosexual couple. If I have a business, I will not recognize a homosexaul couple's marriage and thus I will not provide healthcare for their significant other as I would for a hetrosexual married couple. As far as I'm concerned they are not married. If you also read, I hold the same view for an adulterous couple and an unmarried couple. I will not rent a home or sell one to them and I don't recognize their relationship.

I do have to admit you and Terry are grasping at every straw you can. I have never said the first thing about not serving a homosexual in a resturant sitting or denying them food. If you go back and read what I said, from the beginning, I do not and will not be involved in any activity that condones a homosexual's lifestyle. I will not rent or sell to a homosexual couple. If I have a business, I will not recognize a homosexaul couple's marriage and thus I will not provide healthcare for their significant other as I would for a hetrosexual married couple. As far as I'm concerned they are not married. If you also read, I hold the same view for an adulterous couple and an unmarried couple. I will not rent a home or sell one to them and I don't recognize their relationship.

Refusing to rent a property to someone because of race or sexual orientation is NO different than refusing to sell them a meal or a car.

You are free to not rent to anybody. You are not free to pick and choose. The law is quite clear on that.

I'm not using the force of law to deny anyone anything. I don't give a hoot what another person does. If you want to rent to or sell you home to a homosexual couple do it. I'm not stopping you or anyone else for that matter. There in is the difference between me and you. You demand I support policy to which I disagree and you demand the law bind me to doing so. I on the other hand do not avocate the use fo the force of law. I am for you doing whatever your little heart desires. This is the issue you have never answered.

Yes, I did, in this manner. The reason we must have anti-discrimination laws is so bigots like you can't band together and force other human beings out of their neighborhood (or town, or city, or state, or country...).

You are a bigot, plain and simple. Because your big book of fairy tales tells you that gays aren't human, you wish to deny them rights. I'll bet you would bring back "whites only" water fountains, Willy.

You have your right to your opinion about gays. You do not have the right to discriminate against them.

You are the one grasping at straws, here, willy. You want to demonize a whole group of people under the guise of "freedom", "freedom" meaning freedom for you but not those you oppose.

Sickening.

TerryRC wrote:
Refusing to rent a property to someone because of race or sexual orientation is NO different than refusing to sell them a meal or a car.

You are free to not rent to anybody. You are not free to pick and choose. The law is quite clear on that.

and as I said, you have no right to use the force of government to make me comply with policy to which I disagree and will not support. The failure of your arguement is that I am not using nor do I demand that the law compell you to comply with my views. Just as you don't want my views shoved down your throat, I don't want yours shoved down mine.

TerryRC wrote: Yes, I did, in this manner. The reason we must have anti-discrimination laws is so bigots like you can't band together and force other human beings out of their neighborhood (or town, or city, or state, or country...).

You are a bigot, plain and simple. Because your big book of fairy tales tells you that gays aren't human, you wish to deny them rights. I'll bet you would bring back "whites only" water fountains, Willy.

You have your right to your opinion about gays. You do not have the right to discriminate against them.

You are the one grasping at straws, here, willy. You want to demonize a whole group of people under the guise of "freedom", "freedom" meaning freedom for you but not those you oppose.

Sickening.

If person wants to practice homosexuality, fine. If you want to rent or sell your property to a homosexual couple fine, I'm not stopping you. Even if you were my next door neighbor and chose to sell or rent to a homosexual couple, I would not say anything or try to stop you. It is your property, you bought it, paided for it, and pay the taxes on it, do as you will with it. As long as the value of my property isn't affected, I have no room to complain. What I don't want is people using the force and power of the government to force me to use my property in a way that forces me to compromise my beliefs.

Oh by the way, Terry, you can call me a bigot and a believer in fairy tales if you desire. All you are managing to do is demostrate how childish you are and how weak your position is.

and as I said, you have no right to use the force of government to make me comply with policy to which I disagree and will not support. The failure of your arguement is that I am not using nor do I demand that the law compell you to comply with my views. Just as you don't want my views shoved down your throat, I don't want yours shoved down mine.

You haven't shown where my argument failed.

If people are allowed to discriminate as individuals, then they are allowed to discriminate as groups of individuals. If that is the case, the government can't perform its function of protecting people equally.

That is why anti-discrimination laws are necessary.

You just don't get that.

Oh by the way, Terry, you can call me a bigot and a believer in fairy tales if you desire. All you are managing to do is demostrate how childish you are and how weak your position is.

If you want to talk childish, take a look at your spelling.

Willy, you are a bigot. You think that gays are less than you.

Why? The bible. A collection of stories from a bunch of goatherders that thought the world was flat.

Is it "childish" of me to point out the facts?

TerryRC wrote:and as I said, you have no right to use the force of government to make me comply with policy to which I disagree and will not support. The failure of your arguement is that I am not using nor do I demand that the law compell you to comply with my views. Just as you don't want my views shoved down your throat, I don't want yours shoved down mine.

You haven't shown where my argument failed.

If people are allowed to discriminate as individuals, then they are allowed to discriminate as groups of individuals. If that is the case, the government can't perform its function of protecting people equally.

That is why anti-discrimination laws are necessary.

You just don't get that.

As I said, when I buy property, I work to pay for the property, I pay the taxes on the property, and I do the up keep on the property then you nor anyone else has the earned the right to tell me how to use or dispose of the my property. Anti-discrimination laws like zoning laws are nothing more than tyranny poured on the public by a voting buying leftist government and you have yet to show me where they aren't. If you want me to rent property or sell to homosexual couples, then buy my property and do it yourself, but you, nor the idiots in Washington, nor the morons in Charleston have the right to tell me how I can and can't use my property.

By the way, you might want to read a little bit of Tammy Bruce about this subject sometime. You might just be enlightened.

TerryRC wrote:Oh by the way, Terry, you can call me a bigot and a believer in fairy tales if you desire. All you are managing to do is demostrate how childish you are and how weak your position is.

If you want to talk childish, take a look at your spelling.

Willy, you are a bigot. You think that gays are less than you.

Why? The bible. A collection of stories from a bunch of goatherders that thought the world was flat.

Is it "childish" of me to point out the facts?

Yes, if standing by my principles makes me a bigot in your eyes, so be it, I am. I don't answer to you or your ilk and I really don't give a tinkers damn what you think.

As far as believing that bunch of stories from a bunch of goatherders, we'll eventually see who was wise and did the right thing and who didn't. The real point is that, I believe what those goatherders wrote and thus I don't want you or your ilk shoving you views on me just to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Just maybe those goatherders knew more about living and life then you and you secular humanist ilk ever will.

Finally, I knew at some point my spelling would come up. It always does when one of you have no arguement left and thus all you can do is take jabs at me. That's fine, I have think skin.

As I said, when I buy property, I work to pay for the property, I pay the taxes on the property, and I do the up keep on the property then you nor anyone else has the earned the right to tell me how to use or dispose of the my property. Anti-discrimination laws like zoning laws are nothing more than tyranny poured on the public by a voting buying leftist government and you have yet to show me where they aren't. If you want me to rent property or sell to homosexual couples, then buy my property and do it yourself, but you, nor the idiots in Washington, nor the morons in Charleston have the right to tell me how I can and can't use my property.

Willy. The anti-discrimination laws keep you and your neighbors from driving all of the blacks out of your neighborhood. They keep you from running the Jews out of the state.

You just don't get it.

As far as believing that bunch of stories from a bunch of goatherders, we'll eventually see who was wise and did the right thing and who didn't. The real point is that, I believe what those goatherders wrote and thus I don't want you or your ilk shoving you views on me just to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Just maybe those goatherders knew more about living and life then you and you secular humanist ilk ever will.

Oh, I think I made little Willy angry.

When you roll out the phrase "secular humanist" (do you even know what that means, Willy?), I know I've got you.

Typical. "I can't prove it, but some day you'll be sorry." Very adult and logical...

Yes, if standing by my principles makes me a bigot in your eyes, so be it, I am. I don't answer to you or your ilk and I really don't give a tinkers damn what you think.

Willy. You ARE a bigot. You refuse to treat gays as people. That is the VERY definition of a bigot.

Finally, I knew at some point my spelling would come up. It always does when one of you have no arguement left and thus all you can do is take jabs at me. That's fine, I have think skin.

It goes to your credibility. If you can't pay attention to how you write why should I be bothered to read what you write?

You want to use your religion as a justification to discriminate.

You and the conservative muslims have so many similarities.

TerryRC wrote:

Willy. The anti-discrimination laws keep you and your neighbors from driving all of the blacks out of your neighborhood. They keep you from running the Jews out of the state.

You just don't get it.

Anti-discrimination laws deprive me of the "quiet enjoyment" of the property I have worked for, paided for, and maintain. As I said, if you want to rent or sell property I own to a homosexual couple, you buy it and sell it to them. It is nothing but tyranny to force me to participate in policy and practices I disagree with.

TerryRC wrote: Oh, I think I made little Willy angry.

When you roll out the phrase "secular humanist" (do you even know what that means, Willy?), I know I've got you.

Yep, I know exactly what it means. It is a belief system that avocates human instead of religious values.

TerryRC wrote:Typical. "I can't prove it, but some day you'll be sorry." Very adult and logical...

I went back and read what I posted. Your comprehension sucks. I said, and I quote, we'll eventually see who was wise and did the right thing and who didn't. Maybe you are right and then again maybe I right, ultimately we are going to find out. That is a long ways from what you posted that I said. In the meantime, I don't want your belief system shoved down my throat byt he force of law, nor will I shove mine down yours.

TerryRC wrote: Willy. You ARE a bigot. You refuse to treat gays as people. That is the VERY definition of a bigot.

Again Terry your comprehension sucks. If you go back and read what I have posted, I have said numerous times that I would not sell or rent to a homosexual couple, an unmarried couple, or an adultrous couple. I said doing so means I condone their actions and I will not do that. If that makes me a bigot, then I happily admit, I'm a bigot.

TerryRC wrote:It goes to your credibility. If you can't pay attention to how you write why should I be bothered to read what you write?

Will what I have written certainly must bother you, because you avocate the use dof the force of law to make me condone activity I dsagree with. Additionally, you've continued to post. If what you say is so, why do you continue to post?

TerryRC wrote:You want to use your religion as a justification to discriminate.

You and the conservative muslims have so many similarities.

There you go again making wild claims that you have no idea if they are ture or not. Actually, you are the one that brought up the religion issue, I didn't. You made that jump all by yourself.

Just face it Terry you can't cannot justify using the force of law to require me to participate in policy to which I disagree. Thus, emotional arguements are the best you have. You make statements like comparing me to conservative muslims, or that I don't treat homosexuals like people, or that I would blacks and jews out of my neighborhood. You have little to no comprehension of what liberty really means.

Anti-discrimination laws deprive me of the "quiet enjoyment" of the property I have worked for, paided for, and maintain. As I said, if you want to rent or sell property I own to a homosexual couple, you buy it and sell it to them. It is nothing but tyranny to force me to participate in policy and practices I disagree with.

I don't think it tyranny to make you treat blacks or gays as people.

That you do is telling.

Yep, I know exactly what it means. It is a belief system that avocates human instead of religious values.

And religious values aren't human? You would be more accurate to call me a moral relativist.

Also, what does that have to do with my (or yours, for that matter) argument? Nothing.

Somehow, I don't see you as being concerned with accuracy.

I went back and read what I posted. Your comprehension sucks. I said, and I quote, we'll eventually see who was wise and did the right thing and who didn't. Maybe you are right and then again maybe I right, ultimately we are going to find out. That is a long ways from what you posted that I said. In the meantime, I don't want your belief system shoved down my throat byt he force of law, nor will I shove mine down yours.

What I said was no different. Whatever. You are using the bible as "proof" and "someday we'll see who was right".

Meh. You get all nitpicky when you get served.

Again Terry your comprehension sucks. If you go back and read what I have posted, I have said numerous times that I would not sell or rent to a homosexual couple, an unmarried couple, or an adultrous couple. I said doing so means I condone their actions and I will not do that. If that makes me a bigot, then I happily admit, I'm a bigot.

Why won't you rent to them? Because you don't see them as a person. You would rent to others, but not them.

In Utah, mormons wouldn't rent to blacks because the Book of Mormon teaches that blacks are sub-human.

You are saying that type of behavior is OK. You are saying it is OK to discriminate.

That makes you a bigot.

BTW, how does renting to a gay or serving them a hamburger qualify as "condoning" their lifestyle. You still have yet to address that.

Will what I have written certainly must bother you, because you avocate the use dof the force of law to make me condone activity I dsagree with. Additionally, you've continued to post. If what you say is so, why do you continue to post?

How does renting to a gay "condone" their lifestyle?

You are starting to rave. That is why I continue to post. I want people to see the paucity of your arguments. I want people to see that bigots and zealots are somewhat crazy.

There you go again making wild claims that you have no idea if they are ture or not. Actually, you are the one that brought up the religion issue, I didn't. You made that jump all by yourself.

Muslims discriminate against gays, also. I have made up nothing. Truth hurts, doesn't it, Willy.

Cato wrote:

TerryRC wrote: Oh, I think I made little Willy angry.

When you roll out the phrase "secular humanist" (do you even know what that means, Willy?), I know I've got you.

Yep, I know exactly what it means. It is a belief system that avocates human instead of religious values.

But you repeat yourself.

Everything "religious" is something that has sprung from human minds. If not, how is it that your "religious values" are so in sync with your own version of human values?

ziggy wrote:

Everything "religious" is something that has sprung from human minds. If not, how is it that your "religious values" are so in sync with your own version of human values?

or could it be that my values are sync with something beyond man.

Anyways the arguement is not about religion its about liberty. Niether you nor Terry has managed to explain why you have the right to force me using the power of the government to use or dispose of a my property in a manner that I disapprove of. anctually neither one of you can mannage to give one good reason. Both of you have attacked me personally and my belief system, but you have yet to provide one ledgitimate reason why you or the government has the right to tell me how to use my property.

What galls me Ziggy, about both of you is that you say you love liberty, yet you support laws that deny the liberty of one to use what what is his as he see fit.

or could it be that my values are sync with something beyond man.

It is amazing how we, with our often conflicting sets of values, always find the gods to proclaim values that are identical to our own.

What galls me Ziggy, about both of you is that you say you love liberty,............................

Who said that? When? Where? The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not allow us to deny these same rights to others.

................. yet you support laws that deny the liberty of one to use what what is his as he see fit.

If "liberty" is selective, then it is not liberty at all. The "liberty" to deny liberties to others- to deny them the liberty to live in a neighborhood, to partake fairly of places of public accommodations, and to otherwise live one's life as one sees fit as long as it does not interefere with the right of others to do likewise- is not liberty at all. It is tyranny- whether initiated by the government, or by an individual.

ziggy wrote:

What galls me Ziggy, about both of you is that you say you love liberty,............................

Who said that? When? Where? The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not allow us to deny these same rights to others.

................. yet you support laws that deny the liberty of one to use what what is his as he see fit.

If "liberty" is selective, then it is not liberty at all. The "liberty" to deny liberties to others- to deny them the liberty to live in a neighborhood, to partake fairly of places of public accommodations, and to otherwise live one's life as one sees fit as long as it does not interefere with the right of others to do likewise- is not liberty at all. It is tyranny- whether initiated by the government, or by an individual.

I am not denying anyone the right ot life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness. I am not using the government to force my views on others. I am not stopping another person from selling to a homosexual couple. If you want to sell or rent to them, have at it, that is your choice, I'm not stopping you. Therein is the key to this. it is MY choice not to sell or rent to a homosexual couple, or adulterous couple, or unmarried couple. I'm not running to the government to stop others. It is my choice, just as it is your choice to sell to them.

I am not stopping another person from selling to a homosexual couple.

But you say you would deny a homosexual couple or an unmarried couple the right to buy or rent your property- property which you would sell or rent to anyone else. You seem OK with rights being denied as long as you are the denier of those rights.

ziggy wrote:

I am not stopping another person from selling to a homosexual couple.

But you say you would deny a homosexual couple or an unmarried couple the right to buy or rent your property- property which you would sell or rent to anyone else. You seem OK with rights being denied as long as you are the denier of those rights.

Let me answer that with a question, would you personally lend money to a person who you knew was a deadbeat?

No. Being a deadbeat goes directly to one's ability and likelihood of fullilling or not fullfilling a loan contract. But being a homosexual or an unmarried couple does not affect the likelihood of fullfulling a property sales or rental contract.

Homosexuals and unmarried couples are not any more likely to be deadbeats than anyone else is.