Interesting. I had two horses growing up, and they weren't biters, luckily. But somebody else's horse chomped my son when we went riding at some nearby stables a few years back. I was mad enough to bite that horse, but didn't think it would actually help!

I like that. I did not realize that the Jim Crow laws were actually laws, which makes it worse. It took special action to get rid of it and I doubt that that this new Jim Crow law will work, especially due to the ridicule and scorn any company will receive due to its ridiculous beliefs. That said, you should still have the right to refuse service to whomever you want, but in this day of social networking, you better have a damn good reason.

Yes, all of that is part of the weighing up process.
At which point one says enough is enough, reason has lost, and violent revolution is the only recourse left. Or, as I said, there is still hope. It is still a battle of ideas(of what is "rights" and what is 'wrong') and reason still has a chance to win back our "rights".

I was in a nicer restaurant a few years ago and the parents let their little kid run amok around the other tables bothering the other dinners, then he lay down on the floor. Not surprisingly, the waitress carrying the hot coffee tripped over him.

Yes. It is far preferable, I assure you, to allowing the horse to get a mouthful of ME. We bite biters, and we kick kickers. They usually straighten out quickly, and it's nothing one horse wouldn't do to another. My teeth are always handy, too, so I can punish within the two-second timeframe where the horse can associate the punishment with his action.

Then I spit out the fur.

You actually bite the horse back? I've never heard of that. Do you get a mouthful of fur?

lol. yea, me too. what people get up to...

Penn is not prog. He is libertarian and Rand well read

Amateur radio operators using the 2 and six meter bands were using "repeater networks" as far back as the 70s, possibly earlier. The communication protocols used by these networks were the ancestors of both the internet and cellular communications.

When I go OUT to eat, I just want some good company and a little peace and quiet with my good tasting and nutritious food.

I look at the matter from a business standpoint. The only problem comes up when gays want their weddings catered. Why is that?

It all comes down to brand marketing. Businesses have the right to control the representation of their brand within the market. The Supreme Court has ruled this way on several occasions as the right of expression and a right of association guaranteed under the First Amendment.

When a company hosts an event, they are branding that event with their name. They are saying that they welcome the association of that event with their business. People do business according to their values. Forcing a business to hold an event branded with their name is forcing them to agree to the set of values represented by that event. It's as simple as that.

If you want to be able to be free to select with whom you associate and attach your name, you should support the right of every business to decide what events they choose to support or not.

Incorrect. Rights are individual. There is no action required to either be or remain black. One can be subject to sexual preferences, but until one _acts_ upon that enticement, one is neither gay, straight, or anything else. The difference is significant and can not be conflated.

Yes, the "Baby Bells" weren't much better.

And I'm fairly certain this is true: cell phone technology is based on the WWII "walkie-talkie", which is more believable if you remember the earliest cell phones and what they looked like. I believe that without AT&T and its lobbyists, we could have had non-intrusive, wireless communications long before we did...

Very true. For those who remember the days of "the phone company", that was a monopoly subsidized and protected by government regulation. The Bell System was "broken up" in 1978 via somewhat questionable legal means, only to be replaced by another generation of service providers operating under the same protections "the phone company" enjoyed for many years.

Mind, over the years, Bell Telephone came out on the wrong side of a number of court cases involving their private property. I believe some of these were suits filed by or on behalf of the government.

You might want to listen to some of his discussions with Glenn Beck. He's actually surprisingly articulate and you can tell that he has thought out his positions quite extensively.

I was actually surprised by the position he put himself in in this discussion because it isn't typical or representative of many of his other discussions (see above). Yes, he did in this debate compromise his position by trying to argue parts of both sides. I was frankly rather surprised because in most cases he's a live-and-let-live guy.

Why not, we used to have "No Smoking" sections, why not "No Children" Sections? Did "No Smoking" sections violate anyone's rights? If it did was it the smoker or the non-smoker? Same for "No Children" sections, would they violate anyone's rights? Would it be those with or those without children? So how can participation in a gay, black, white, or interracial wedding be forced on anyone? In any case this is no place for the federal government to impose someone's (like Harry's or Nancy's)whims.

Yes, but especially in the case of people who claim principles, it's important not to let a "whoops" go unmentioned, at least. Like Rand Paul signing a pro-life pledge...

All we need do is look at history, and also at current laws and regulations in today's "government": the Government certainly does tell us who to buy from in many cases, e.g. cable/Internet monopolies among other things...and you'll certainly see a lot of Leftists protesting that (and a lot of intelligent people, too).

Yes. Public accommodation laws seem in conflict with other rights... poorly conceived since true rights do not conflict.
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20t...

Keep in mind Jim Crow was the legal structure, it was government action. What we are debating here is private decision. So is this the same as refusing to serve blacks?

For the most part the issue isn't serving gays but being a participant in gay marriage. But the question remains whether businesses have the right to decide who to serve or not. If it's their right, we don't get to judge their motives. I don't accept that you have to have a religion to have rights.

I would suggest that, for the most part, individual preference should prevail. We do not have a culture where no gay man can get a cake or a photographer, these are isolated incidents -- in many cases deliberately sought out for political reasons. I think it's terrible that the KKK was able to force the black business in Georgia to serve them.

Instead of considering the civil rights legislation the paradigm of how we should deal with differences, why not consider the remnants of slavery as a special case that was so pervasive that it required special action.

Indeed. Mind, I did not claim that the U.S. has a "free market". Though small business owners do retain some degree of freedom....until they run into a disgruntled customer who can afford an attorney. Sigh.

I agree. I'm not a legal expert so if I'm wrong about this, I'm sure someone will let me know: I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went too far in that it started us down the road of "group rights" by applying its attempts to halt discrimination to the private sector. Had it restricted itself to making it illegal for States to make laws that forced private businesses to discriminate against blacks, that would have a been a properly limited Federal response, similar to Roe v. Wade making choice legal in all States where it was illegal.

It may have taken some time for competition to overcome entrenched cultural bias and eventually desegregate all private establishments, but that would have been both morally proper and infinitely better than the subsequent myriad of similar Federal laws (and their attendant, expensive and inherently "discriminatory" bureaucracies) favoring other groups like women, gays, the "disabled" etc. ad infinitum.

Hah! Kind of like the health insurance "marketplace".

My wife & I are with you on that... we raised our kids (we believed in the seen but not-heard in a public location) and we don't have grandkids yet, no interest in listening to other people's collection of them.

If they have the kiddie menu or the crayons at the table, I'm out of there...

We stick to Thai spicy restaurants, steakhouses that only serve veggies with the meat, and the occasional gastropub of some type, it's amazing how few children we see when we go out.

Chuck-E-Cheese... never happening. All you can eat Pizza & Soda, not on your life...

I also dont think the way we have sex should have anything to do with how we are governed either. I don't want to have to think about what someone else does in their own privacy.