Conservatives Denied Housing Over Political Beliefs, Is This Illegal?

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:


Is it legal though?
You keep claiming as such not based off any laws

Hence I show about as much conviction in your views, as I do the dodo

Are you asking me if what is legal, is legal?   I just said: "In the absence of a statute or other regulation or law, all things are legal to all people."  What part of that don't you understand?

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Isn't that obvious?  Discrimination is not an inherently bad thing.  It's just discrimination, over essentials, based upon arbitrary criteria, that is wrong.

Its not discrimination, because again, how can you force yourself to be attracted to someone you are not?

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:


Its not discrimination, because again, how can you force yourself to be attracted to someone you are not?

Discrimination is "Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."  Oxford Dictionary.  Other meanings have been attached, but that is the core meaning.

Unlawful discrimination is distinguishing in a manner deemed by a legislature to be wrong.  But, not all discrimination is wrong...for example, one with discriminating taste is even admired.  As John Schaar wrote: "Inequality [discrimination] while it may be the root of much that is cruel and hateful in human life, is also the root of just about everything that is admirable and interesting."  Schaar, John, "Some Ways of Thinking about Equality", Journal of Politics (1964).

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you asking me if what is legal, is legal?   I just said: "In the absence of a statute or other regulation or law, all things are legal to all people."  What part of that don't you understand?

Has a case gone to court and they lost?

So how can you clim its legal?

Try again

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:


Has a case gone to court and they lost?

So how can you clim its legal?

Try again

No one is foolish enough to bring a case with no foundation.  Laws are rules that are man-made.  All legal action is predicated on laws, whether statutory or common, and constitutional provisions.

Didge wrote:In a room where there is 10 women and you are only attracted to two of them, can you control that you are attracted to them?

The answer is no

You can certainly control your actions not to act on this attraction, but you cannot control how you are indeed attracted to them

Hence how can that be discrimination to those you are not attracated to?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:In a room where there is 10 women and you are only attracted to two of them, can you control that you are attracted to them?

The answer is no

You can certainly control your actions not to act on this attraction, but you cannot control how you are indeed attracted to them

Hence how can that be discrimination to those you are not attracated to?

You answered your own question.  Discrimination is treating people differently, and you are attracted to some of them.  The attraction is the discrimination.

Jeez...you are thick.  Get a dictionary...you need a lesson in basics.

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No one is foolish enough to bring a case with no foundation.  Laws are rules that are man-made.  All legal action is predicated on laws, whether statutory or common, and constitutional provisions.

Copout

Again you need to prove its legal, which as yet you have failed to do

Didge wrote:Again you cannot rule on something that has never been brought to trial

Didge wrote:My view, is that if this woman from Fox news brought this to court, she would win

Original Quill wrote:
Anything is legal, unless it's outlawed.  Nothing could be easier.  Law is a man-made enterprise.  If man hasn't made it, it doesn't exist.

Didge wrote:You are not treating them differently, as you are not acting on this attraction

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You are not treating them differently, as you are not acting on this attraction

That's why I say that discrimination requires an act.  That's why there's no demonstrable discrimination on a belief.

Didge wrote:a case was made against a bakery and the owner not to make a wedding cake?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:a case was made against a bakery and the owner not to make a wedding cake?

You don't give a citation, but I surmise the case was brought (not "made") by the government, and the defense raised a constitutional defense of religious freedom (to refuse).
don't say, but I surmise the defense raised the defendant was Religious Freedom, First Amendment, Constitution of the United States.

See?  You've gotta have laws to do law.

Didge wrote:So you just did a massive u-turn, where again to you, if a gay man does not find a woman attractive, its an act to not be attracted to them.

Hence with that act, you must think being gay must be a choice?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So you just did a massive u-turn, where again to you, if a gay man does not find a woman attractive, its an act to not be attracted to them.

Hence with that act, you must think being gay must be a choice?

It is not an act, not to be attracted—straight or gay.  It’s a state of mind.  You stipulated that there was no action taken on the attraction in your hypothetical.  It would have to be the same, gay or straight, for the comparison to be valid.

Why does a simple comparison infer that homosexuality is a choice?  How’d you get there?  It’s another rabbit hole, and it doesn’t even make sense.  We weren't even talking about gay choice.  We were talking about any attraction, not homosexuality.  Don’t you see how your mind fails to follow a linear path?

And the question of discrimination on attraction is the same for straight or homosexual.  If there's no action, it's just an attraction...a state of mind.

Thor wrote:I dont need to give a citation

Didge wrote:The point is cases are based on their merit and you again have failed to show its legal to discriminate against people based on their beliefs

Didge wrote:I know you are wrong, as you cannot do so on religious beliefs for example

Didge wrote:The fact is, I know you have the basic understanding of law Quill, because you again cannot rule on something that has never gone to court

Didge wrote:So if its a state of mind, how can that be dsicrmination, if you have no control over this for the hundreth time asking?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So if its a state of mind, how can that be dsicrmination, if you have no control over this for the hundreth time asking?

You can discriminate in your mind.  It's just a decision about differences.

It all comes down to the science of attraction.

One of the new hot-button topics is as follows: is it discrimination not to want to date a trans person? What about a black, Asian, overweight, or disabled person?

Some argue that dating preferences result from racism, sexism, fatphobia, transphobia, or other biases. Others simply state that one cannot control attraction. So what is really going on?

Racial preferences in dating can get messy in the current political and social climate, where political correctness is often valued over genuine opinions. According to an OkCupid report, black women and Asian men are at a dating preference disadvantage, so that obviously signals racism, right?

No, it does not. One cannot control whoever they are attracted to and what turns them on. For example, gay people prefer the same sex, and it is not a choice.

Yes, cultural perceptions of beauty and attractiveness do play into it; however, being attracted to what society values is not one's fault. If a man prefers women with large breasts, he may have been subconsciously influenced by a community around him that idolizes busty women. This is not his fault and can be chalked up to his surroundings.

Also, familiarity leads into attraction. According to a study at Trinity University in Dublin, Ireland, people tend to prefer features that they have seen before. If one grows up around in an area where Latinx people live, they are more likely to be attracted to Latinx people. However, what one sees and is exposed to (as well as childhood experiences and exposure) is largely out of their control. Yes, most idolized celebrities and actresses are white, and this undoubtedly plays a role in white women's dating advantage (highlighted in OkCupid's report); however, attraction trends cannot be blamed on the individual person, but rather on society as a whole.

Humans have a natural tendency to subconsciously select the healthiest mates so their offspring has the best chance for survival. Therefore, obese and disabled people are naturally chosen as partners less often, because they can lack the abilities to produce successful descendants. Obese people tend to be less healthy in general, and have much higher risks for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than those with weight within the normal range. This is not discrimination; it is simply science.

The deal with trans dating preferences is that there are many valid reasons not to date a trans person. One could a) want to have biological children (which is often impossible, because of the sterilization effects of HRT) or b) simply not be attracted to them. There are many reports on Reddit of people being turned off by the thought of someone being the opposite gender at one point. Also, many trans people simply are not male or female enough to merit attraction from a monosexual person (Note: monosexuality is simply being attracted to one specific gender.) According to Business Insider, roughly two thirds of transgender individuals have not had genital surgery, and it's impossible to force attraction to traits that one is simply not attracted to (Just ask any gay person).

In the end, this is what it all comes down to: attraction is innate and one does not have much influence over their own. A person does not choose to be attracted to whatever genders, races, or body types they prefer; it is all a matter of genetics, environment, and natural selection.

Finally, the ugly truth is as follows: nobody is entitled to a date. If other humans find a person attractive, then they may want to mate with said person; however, if they do not, it is entirely their choice. Dating is not a human right, and nobody is obligated to be attracted to anyone.

Didge wrote:Its your warped view that would make homosexuality a choice, based on discrimination with choice on attraction

Didge wrote:Hence why again you are a thick cunt

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Its your warped view that would make homosexuality a choice, based on discrimination with choice on attraction

This isn’t about homosexuality.  That’s just another rabbit-hole.

Didge wrote:Hence why again you are a thick cunt

Hardly a intelligent comment.  Are you drunk again?  You were pretty wasted last night.  You might seek help.

Didge wrote:You simple cannot make sense here, as you have no idea about physical or sexual attraction or how its impossible for people to control this

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You simple cannot make sense here, as you have no idea about physical or sexual attraction or how its impossible for people to control this

Nor drinking with you, sad to say.

Didge wrote:Discrimination when it happens, is an active choice, hence to not be attractive, is not a choice the mind can make

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Discrimination when it happens, is an active choice, hence to not be attractive, is not a choice the mind can make

Why can’t one be discriminating in the mind?  We speak of discrimination when we speak of good taste: she has discriminating taste.  One can do that without acting.  It's just decisions in the mind.

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nor drinking with you, sad to say.

Its not about me here

It is about you being a thick cunt

Its as simple as that when you do not understand what attraction is

You claimed it was discriminatory and by extension was arguing that its a choice

Hence to you, being gay is a choice

That makes you the biggest cunt going

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

Its not about me here

It is about you being a thick cunt

Its as simple as that when you do not understand what attraction is

You claimed it was discriminatory and by extension was arguing that its a choice

Hence to you, being gay is a choice

That makes you the biggest cunt going

**sigh**  Unfortunately, your alcoholism makes this about you.  You seem to be drifting in and out of consciousness.  You can't concentrate.  You're making ridiculous disparaging remarks.  You cannot follow a linear train of thought.

I'll give you one more exchange, and then maybe you'll pass out:

1.  Attraction is making a choice, being discriminating about someone who attracts you.

2.  I said that making something legal/illegal could only be action.  Ideas, without action, do not constitute an infraction.

3.  This isn't about homosexuality.  Attraction is about being discriminating (selective) regarding anything.

4.  The choice of a mate is about discrimination, or being selective in choosing one's mate.  (Homosexuality is hereditary, and not a matter of choice, but that is not a part of this discussion.)

Original Quill wrote:Now sober up.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HASN'T Dodge become the proper all-encompassing 'Marxist'-minded autocrat in this thread...

Especially with respect to securing housing accommodation for those poor widdle hard-put-upon ultra_conservative lobbyists and journalists, crawling around those DC gutters..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HASN'T Dodge become the proper all-encompassing 'Marxist'-minded autocrat in this thread...

Especially with respect to securing housing accommodation for those poor widdle hard-put-upon ultra_conservative lobbyists and journalists, crawling around those DC gutters..

Thor wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HASN'T Dodge become the proper all-encompassing 'Marxist'-minded autocrat in this thread...

Especially with respect to securing housing accommodation for those poor widdle hard-put-upon ultra_conservative lobbyists and journalists, crawling around those DC gutters..

Never made any such view, based upoin the above lies

Which is why I come to give as much respect to left these days as they are full of lies

Its no wonder Eilzel argues in favour or lying and not  being honest

Lol, or simple exposed two regressive marxists. Who think its okay to discriminate against people on their beliefs?

Its no surprise you and that other idiot quill expose your prejudice.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:


Never made any such view, based upoin the above lies

Which is why I come to give as much respect to left these days as they are full of lies

Its no wonder Eilzel argues in favour or lying and not  being honest

Lol, or simple exposed two regressive marxists. Who think its okay to discriminate against people on their beliefs?

Its no surprise you and that other idiot quill expose your prejudice.

Stalin and Mao would both have loved to have you in their respective war cabinets,  Komrad Dodgski...

What with all your back-pedalling, obfuscations and outright denials, as you attempt to cover up your obvious 'socialist' autocratic proclivities..

No doubt you have posters of Stalin, Marx and Mao up on the wall behind your compootuh, to carry you on through those long drawn-out dreary winter nights.