Student Sues Professor

TerryRC wrote:No, the government, ie politicians, use the force of law to require it. The real question is, why should government be involved at all?

That is not the question. The question is, that if you do it for married heteros, under what grounds do you deny it to married homos.

Again, where does the state get off tell me who I can and can't rent to. Should it be my decision. If I choose not to rent to homosexuals, that's my choice and if it costs me money, then it cost me money. The key is is that it is my choice.

Get your neighbors together and you can keep those queers entirely out of the neighborhood...

If you force me to participate in or support with my tax dollars policy to which I disagree that is tyranny.

Then stop paying taxes. I don't like my money going to faith-based charities. Didn't get much support from you all on that one...

You are the one saying that is what I said. The fact of the matter is I didn't.

Yes, you did. Every example you gave of a "privilege" that gays want is something that straight people already receive.

Without knowing what the kid actually said, my opinion is that the professor deprived the kid his constitutional right to free speach. Additionally, the professor proves beyond doubt just how hypocritical much of academia is when it comes to rights and liberty.

We know the kid used the bible to call for legislation to deny gays rights that straight people have.

Had this kid used the book of mormon to call for legislation to ban blacks from marrying, you would not be this worked up.

It is clear that you do not believe that gays should have the same rights that you have.

By the way, approving of someones lifestyle is not the same as accepting it. Nobody is asking you to approve.

Terry, tell you what you believe what you want, you do what you want, and you can think of me whatever you want. The more you preach about tolerance and liberty, the more you show yourself to be intolerant and willing to use whatever means including the force of law to shove your views on others.

Terry, tell you what you believe what you want, you do what you want, and you can think of me whatever you want. The more you preach about tolerance and liberty, the more you show yourself to be intolerant and willing to use whatever means including the force of law to shove your views on others.

Spoken like someone that has lost an argument.

At what point in this thread did I show intolerance?

I guess we are done here.

Terry, tell you what you believe what you want, you do what you want, and you can think of me whatever you want. The more you preach about tolerance and liberty, the more you show yourself to be intolerant and willing to use whatever means including the force of law to shove your views on others.

Also, this professor didn't use "the law", he used school codes that the student AGREED to, if only tacitly.

Even you agreed that the student, if he didn't like it, could find another school.

Much easier to insult me, though...

BTW, willy, you have yet to list a single "privilege" that gays want that straights don't have.

Here is an example if your kind of "tolerance, Willy.

Colorado state senator compares being gay to committing murder.

TerryRC wrote:Here is an example if your kind of "tolerance, Willy.

Colorado state senator compares being gay to committing murder.

Your point is what, that it makes it acceptable to be as equally intolerant. Or is it that if someone doesn't share your views they are intolerant. Or are you saying he's not allowed his opinion or allowed to express the opinion of thep eople he represents.

From the article -

On the floor of the Colorado state senate on Monday, Republican Sen. Scott Renfroe equated “homosexuality as a sin with murder” during a debate on a bill that would allow same-sex partners of state employees to be covered by health care benefits. “I’m not saying this (homosexuality) is the only sin that’s out there,” said Renfroe. “We have murder. We have all sorts of sin. We have adultery. And we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal.” ProgressNow Colorado posted the audio:

He's one person in the Colorado State Senate. He was elected by his peers to represent them in the state government. So, obviously many of his peers must share his views, but still he's just one representative and that is it. He has every right to articulate his views just as the homosexual community and their representation has the same right to express theirs. Welcome to the world of debate and representative government.

Your point is what, that it makes it acceptable to be as equally intolerant. Or is it that if someone doesn't share your views they are intolerant. Or are you saying he's not allowed his opinion or allowed to express the opinion of thep eople he represents.

Willy, until you show where I have been intolerant in this thread or where gays want "privileges" that straights don't have, I will consider you filled with hot air.

I tire of your bare assertions.

Wasn't TRC preaching from the same "bandwagon" a couple years ago when the teacher refused to accept a "leaf project" from a certain young lady?

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/194847-judge-dismisses-sissonville-students-case-over-failing-grade

What is your point, Sammy?

What does one have to do with the other?

I said that the Sissonville girl didn't meet a known deadline.

Heaven forbid we actually expect people to meet deadlines. Oh, the horror.

That has to do with this case, how?

You are a real think-tank, Sammy. Can't see why you aren't considered a National Treasure.

Willy, until you show where ..... gays want "privileges" that straights don't have, I will consider you filled with hot air.

I do not think it was the heterosexuals that were demanding Hate Crime Legislation be enacted.

And it was not the heterosexuals that were demanding that the queers with HIV/AIDS not be "outed".

.

I do not think it was the heterosexuals that were demanding Hate Crime Legislation be enacted.

Does hate crime law protect only the queers? Are homos even on the "protected" list in every state?

Pull the other one, Sammy.

And it was not the heterosexuals that were demanding that the queers with HIV/AIDS not be "outed".

Right. You have no right to keep your medical records private in this country...

Meh...

TerryRC wrote:What is your point, Sammy?

What does one have to do with the other?

TRC preaching from the same "bandwagon"

Are your eyes so smoked up you can't read, or what?

So you have no point, Sammy?

What does one have to do with the other?

Answer the question, humor me... or would it make your hatin' look stupid?

P.S. Suck a bag of dicks.

TRC preaching from the same "bandwagon"

C'mon, Sammy. What is the bandwagon? That I said both educators were within their rights?

Oh, the horror!

TerryRC wrote:Your point is what, that it makes it acceptable to be as equally intolerant. Or is it that if someone doesn't share your views they are intolerant. Or are you saying he's not allowed his opinion or allowed to express the opinion of thep eople he represents.

Willy, until you show where I have been intolerant in this thread or where gays want "privileges" that straights don't have, I will consider you filled with hot air.

Ok lets see

TerryRC wrote:
He was proselytizing, plain and simple. The pulpit is the place for that, not the podium. He got burned.

TerryRC wrote:Do even know what he said, which is a question I've posed and you've never answered, that I see? You certainly made a quick assumption of what the kid was doing, however.

He was proposing legislation based upon the bible, using quotes from the bible as "references". This is something that all sources agree on.

The kid isn't content to live the way he thinks the bible dictates, he wants to force others to, also. That is zealotry by most definitions.

So because he used the bible as his moral code all of sudden he's a zealot. Additionally, how do you know he was trying to force others to do the same or did you just jump to that conclusion?

TerryRC wrote:Get your neighbors together and you can keep those queers entirely out of the neighborhood...

My whole point has been one of free choice. If homosexuals choose to marry fine, if the state chooses to recognize that marriage fine, but don't force me using the power of the state and the force of law to in anyway pay for, be involved with, or be required to assoicate with them.

As you pointed out about "faith based" items and your tax dollars being used for them, which you disagree. I agree with you, I don't like that either. The same issue you face over faith based items, I face over homosexual issues. I don't want to be forced to rent to, provide health care coverage for their signficant other, or any other be required by law to associate with homosexuals in manners to which I disagree.

So what is the solution? I concede to you, but otherwise, I have to endure policy to whic I disagree. My point is this is a two way street. You seem to not understand that.

TerryRC wrote:I tire of your bare assertions.

No what you tire of is being confronted with the simple fact, it is tyranny when either side of an issue uses the force of government to push their views on another.

So because he used the bible as his moral code all of sudden he's a zealot. Additionally, how do you know he was trying to force others to do the same or did you just jump to that conclusion?

No, Willy. When he calls for EVERYONE to live by his moral code he is a zealot. And it was proselytizing.

Am I wrong?

You still have yet to show where I have been intolerant and you STILL have yet to show what rights that gays want that are denied to straight people.

Simple facts? You have yet to provide one.

TerryRC wrote:
I do not think it was the heterosexuals that were demanding Hate Crime Legislation be enacted.

Does hate crime law protect only the queers? Are homos even on the "protected" list in every state?

Are you really as stupid as your responses imply?

What next silly arsed question will you be asking?

"If the No Smoking Laws demanded by the Health Departments protect only the non-smokers" ......... or something else similar to all three.



.

Are you really as stupid as your responses imply?

Typical brilliant response, Sammy.

Do you have a point? Other groups were behind that legislation, also. Groups like the NAACP. Are they straight or gay?

You are so eager to be hatin' on me, you have lost any resemblance of focus.

I don't want to be forced to rent to, provide health care coverage for their signficant other, or any other be required by law to associate with homosexuals in manners to which I disagree.

Suck it up.

Did you support me what I said it was wrong for my tax money to go to some church charity?

Remember how much sympathy I got from you? Precious little.

Discrimination is illegal. I didn't make the rules, but there they are, nevertheless.

Do you feel you should be able to deny housing to someone because they are black?

Same thing.

TerryRC wrote:

Did you support me what I said it was wrong for my tax money to go to some church charity?

Remember how much sympathy I got from you? Precious little.

I don't really remember what I did, in the end I doubt seriously if you really know what I did either. Be that as it may, if I didn't speak against our tax dollars going to a religious anything, then I was wrong for not doing so.

TerryRC wrote: Discrimination is illegal. I didn't make the rules, but there they are, nevertheless.

Do you feel you should be able to deny housing to someone because they are black?

Same thing.

Since I own the property, I made the payments for the property, and pay the taxes on the property, I should have every right to choice who I rent to or who I sell to. I own the property, I'll do with it what I please. If that makes me a racist or homaphobe, I guess so be it. Nobody has the right to force me or you to support policy to which was disagree. Our founders refered to that as tyranny.

Seems to me instead of whining and wringing your hands trying to tell me how pathetic I am, that your indignation should be directed at the politicians that created this mess to begin with.

Terry,

Why don't business owners and property owners have any rights? If a property owner doesn't want blacks, or gays, or whites, or Yankees named Stephanie living in their property but the government forces them to, aren't their rights being trampled upon? It is their property.

Why don't business owners and property owners have any rights? If a property owner doesn't want blacks, or gays, or whites, or Yankees named Stephanie living in their property but the government forces them to, aren't their rights being trampled upon? It is their property.

If a person applies for a job and the job goes to a lesser-qualified white person rather than a more qualified black person, it is clearly discrimination.

Renting is no different. If you aren't going to rent to a likely person with proper references, get out of the renting business.

Not so long ago, whole towns would ban the presence of jews, blacks and papists. What about the rights of those people to put down roots where they want. As you say, it is a free country.

If today's discrimination laws seem extreme, just remember that Truman couldn't get a Federal anti-lynching law passed because of "conservative" democrats and republicans.

Seems to me instead of whining and wringing your hands trying to tell me how pathetic I am, that your indignation should be directed at the politicians that created this mess to begin with.

Who is whining? You are the one screaming about someone's rights being trampled.

I support gay marriage. I applaud the politicians that created this "mess".

Who is really whining, here?

I didn't call you "pathetic", BTW. I called you a "homophobe", something you clearly are.

TerryRC wrote:
I support gay marriage. I applaud the politicians that created this "mess".

Who is really whining, here?

I didn't call you "pathetic", BTW. I called you a "homophobe", something you clearly are.

Yep, you are right I would not rent or sell a house to a homosexual couple. If I were an employer I would not provide healthcare to the partner of a homosexual employee. If that makes me a homophobe so be it. I apply the very same principles to an adulterous couple, so I guess I'm an adulteraphobe also. I also apply the same principles to welfare mommies, be they black, white, hispanic, so I guess that makes me a welfarephobe also.

Yes, I admit I discriminate. As I said, I bought the property or own the business. I make the payments. It is me who assumes the risk. What I want to know, big boy, where the hell do you or anyone else get off using the force of law to require me to accept policy for which I fully disagree and want to part of.

You stated, that you did like having you tax dollars going to faith based organizations, I don't much like being forced to rent or provide healthcare coverage to groups whose choices I disagree and actually loath. You say you support the politicans that have created this, then you are supporting the very people who are more than willing to use foce to make both you and I accept policy for which we disagree.

Basically, what you're saying is that private citizens and private business owners are not free to do business and associate with only those they choose to. That is not freedom, Terry, and I oppose that position, it runs contrary to liberty.

It is an entirely different subject when we're discussing governments, or goverment agencies, or even citizens and businesses receiving government funds. For example, if Cato owns rental property and he doesn't want to rent or lease to homosexuals, he should not be forced to. That's denying him his liberty. I don't agree with his position. I have gay friends who are wonderful people and it upsets me that some people are so narrow minded. However, I consider that to be their loss because these are oustanding people, loyal friends who work hard and give back to the community etc.

On the other hand, if Cato's policy is to discriminate against homosexuals, I don't think he should be eligible to participate in section 8 housing, nor do I think he should be able to receive any government subsidized loans or receive any grants for improving his property. The government shouldn't condone discrimination nor should they enable it.

TerryRC wrote:

If a person applies for a job and the job goes to a lesser-qualified white person rather than a more qualified black person, it is clearly discrimination.

Renting is no different. If you aren't going to rent to a likely person with proper references, get out of the renting business.

Who do you think you are blowing smoke at.

A whitey is not allowed to become a Member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

And you don't have anything to rent to someone ....... therefore you have no worry about who you would rent to.

Prove you are not a phony hypocrite, ...... buy a really nice house or apartment and then rent it to a family of scumbags.



.