Upload
Login or register
x

LGBT the Oppressors

 
LGBT the Oppressors. Applies to all the extreme gay loving liberals who want to take away rights and give another special privileges.. The dag the form a busine

Applies to all the extreme gay loving liberals who want to take away rights and give another special privileges.

The dag the form a
business to close its doors for
simply believing in traditional
mamas is the day they can no
longer blaim to he "oppressed."
congratulations, you' now
Income the oppress."
Ben shaman
...
+243
Views: 12548
Favorited: 22
Submitted: 07/11/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to logicalcommonsense

Comments(81):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
12>
[ 81 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
69 comments displayed.
Reply
+28
#7 - squeejee ONLINE (07/12/2015) [-]
If it is your business you should be able to deny anyone anything.
Reply
0
User avatar #77 to #7 - elementfall (07/12/2015) [-]
Do you know who denied someone in their business ? The communists
And nazis
The champion of cyrodiil is the new sheogorath
Reply
+6
#8 to #7 - christhechris ONLINE (07/12/2015) [-]
If your business is open to the public then it is obligated to be open to all of the public.
Reply
+14
#10 to #8 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
Go back to commie-stan. A private business can defy service to whomever it wants. If that doesn't gel with somebody, they can go to another business, that's how capitalism works.
Reply
+2
User avatar #46 to #10 - craxxet (07/12/2015) [-]
>Medicine company won't sell you medicine because of some ******** reason
>Medicine company has monopoly
>Die of disease
>Memearrows
Reply
+1
User avatar #15 to #10 - logicstrike (07/12/2015) [-]
that's restricting your buisness from potential customers and even if you could do it, why, as you'd be putting yourself at a disadvantage to the buisnesses who don't.
Reply
+6
#16 to #15 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
So let businesses do that and fail, the only people who lose are the business owners.
Reply
+4
#31 to #16 - muken (07/12/2015) [-]
That's exactly what happened. They did it, people hated them for it, and they failed. Capitalism win.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression they called the cops and had them shut down.
Reply
-1
#33 to #10 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
That's fine amd dandy and all but it's a poor business move.
Reply
-1
#12 to #10 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
no, no it can't and that's not necessary for capitalism to work.
Reply
+3
#17 to #8 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
A privately owned business is obliged to do **** all for you, they can deny you service for a number of things, even if they just don't like you in particular, being gay shouldn't be an exception to that because "muh feelings"
Reply
-1
#19 to #17 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
US federal law begs to differ
Reply
+2
#20 to #19 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
Slavery was federal law as well at one point, remember that.
Reply
-1
#21 to #20 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
state, not federal law
Reply
+9
#24 to #7 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
But you DO have that right.
It's the same with the freedom of speech. You absolutely can say everything you want, but nothing can protect you against the potential backlash and criticism.

The bakery in question was never legally forced to close.
Reply
+8
User avatar #45 - lazypaul (07/12/2015) [-]
There is a difference between believing in traditional marriage and refusing to serve gay people.
Reply
0
User avatar #76 to #45 - rundas (07/12/2015) [-]
They never refused to serve gay people. They just didn't wanted to be a part of something they disagree with, i.e. a gay wedding. In at least one of the cases, the suing party had been long-time customers of the florist/cake shop/whatever it was, and the storeowner knew they were gay and still served them. But they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding. Just like I wouldn't want to be forced to serve at a Nazi rally.
Reply
0
User avatar #80 to #76 - lazypaul (07/12/2015) [-]
I wasn't talking about any specific case, what I am saying is that it isn't oppression to shut down a business for refusing to serve gay people that's just anti-discriminatory law. In the case you mentioned the cake shop got sued because they broke the law by refusing to serve gay people. It doesn't matter if they served them for years they still refused them service that time on account of their sexuality.
Reply
+1
User avatar #81 to #80 - rundas (07/12/2015) [-]
...but again, it had nothing to do with their sexuality. It had to do with the EVENT they were being forced to serve at, not the people. Quit deflecting
Reply
+6
User avatar #53 to #45 - atusek (07/12/2015) [-]
You mean like with what happened to chick fil a? Never refused gay people, yet there were country wide protests boycotts and calls to shut them down
Reply
0
User avatar #54 to #53 - lazypaul (07/12/2015) [-]
Why were they protesting them? And did they get shut down by the law?
Reply
+2
User avatar #55 to #54 - atusek (07/12/2015) [-]
There were huge protests around my local one. Ignored em and bought everything I could. The point is though that they weren't shut down by the law, but there were tons of people who wanted them shut down, and they never refused service to a single person. Unsuccessful oppression is still oppression. People treated poor cashiers and drive through workers like **** all because of a religious CEO of a religious fast food chain
Reply
+1
User avatar #56 to #55 - atusek (07/12/2015) [-]
Protests were because the ceo said he preferred traditional marriage and donated to some traditional marriage advocacy groups. Not the smartest idea, but it's his right to do what he wants
Reply
+1
User avatar #59 to #55 - lazypaul (07/12/2015) [-]
Well people protesting a place isn't the same as oppression. It would be oppression if the government shut them down because their ceo was opposed to gay marriage but that wasn't the case. I agree that it is a daft reason to boycott the place but it is just people choosing to protest.
Reply
+1
#62 to #59 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
yet in these cases people are never removed from these illegal rallies...
Reply
0
User avatar #63 to #62 - lazypaul (07/12/2015) [-]
How were they illegal rallies?
Reply
+2
#65 to #63 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
assemblies must be permitted and overseen by police in almost all 50 states... If you haven't received the appropriate permit you cannot legally assemble as a group... yet rarely do the police do anything so long as its straight white Christians that are being protested against...but if a straight white christian group wants to hold a rally, the police will arrest anyone that refuses to disperse. In modern America its only legal to oppress straight white Christians, everyone else deserves special treatment.
Reply
+1
#67 to #65 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
wanted black felons assemble illegally in california over the three strikes law yet none are arrested, thousands of illegal immigrants assemble in the capital yet none are arrested, LGBT activists act sometimes violently against those that disagree with them and yet none are arrested...
Reply
+2
#68 to #67 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
But let a white man say ****** in public and see the outrage.
Reply
+1
#69 to #68 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
let a white cop shoot a hood rat who was trying to kill him and his whole life is over, black people get record deals once theyve killed enough people
Reply
+1
#71 to #69 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
A white man is no longer allowed to celebrate his culture and heritage because some other white men did bad things to black men 200 ******* years ago. But blacks can shout obscenities in public, blare their stereos as loud as possible and deal drugs openly in public and when someone tries to stop them they yell racism.
Reply
+82
#4 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
Wanna see a magic trick?
Replace gay with black and traditional marriage with segregation. You have now been dated by 60 years
Reply
0
#49 to #4 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
Nice magic trick, you managed to turn an apple into an orange.
Reply
+2
User avatar #29 to #4 - uzzwick (07/12/2015) [-]
indeed, this post is kinda ********
Reply
+2
#60 to #4 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
Whats that anon? False equivalency?
Reply
+5
User avatar #57 to #4 - fyaq (07/12/2015) [-]
I mean regardless you should be allowed to do whatever you want in a business.

You should have the right to be racist/homophobic/whatever, and the consumers have a right to choose whether or not that deters them.


Hurt feelings should not dictate everything. Freedom of expression applies to everyone, not just people who you agree with
Reply
+15
User avatar #35 to #4 - nykis (07/12/2015) [-]
A store owner can do whatever they want with their business as long as It doesn't hurt anyone else, no mater how stupid it is. If they don't want to serve black or gay people so be it, they're the ones loosing profit.
Reply
+15
#27 - akulakhan (07/12/2015) [-]
I think what a lot of people fail to notice in cases like this is the owner of a business has (and should have) a full right to offer their services, or not, to whoever they wish. The only people they hurt this way are themselves. You don't serve the X group? Well, jolly ******* genius idea, bro, you just lost potential customers. Have fun running the business with lower income than what you'd have if you kept your beliefs for yourself. It's that simple, really. You discourage people from giving you their money and it comes to bite you in the ass in the long run, but the only one you're hurting is yourself. If only libruls and lefties understood that.
Reply
-1
#43 to #27 - polpoulpe (07/12/2015) [-]
They're hurting the customer too, because he can't have access to the service.
You know, this whole "businesses should have the right not to serve anyone" thing is a really american thing. Businesses are forced to serve anyone here in europe. Not saying it's better though.
Reply
+1
User avatar #66 to #43 - profpterodactyl (07/12/2015) [-]
What ******* business is refusing them service. Correct me if i'm wrong but the only ones I have heard about are wedding related, not ******* hospitals. Yeah them not getting a cake is sad for them but they are not getting physical hurt. If they aren't getting medical needs meet thats needs to stop, but if you go to ******* cake company and they dont want to make you a cake, get over it and go somewhere else. The US has anti monopoly laws so there, at least as long those laws are still working everywhere, their shouldn't be only one place you can go to get something.
Reply
+6
User avatar #26 - theluppijackal (07/12/2015) [-]
******* nonsense.

"The day the racial integration left forces a business to close it's doors for believing ******* are sub-humans is the day can no longer claim to be oppressed. Congratulations now you're the oppressors."

www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/30wvfc/want_evidence_of_hysterical_antichristian_bigotry/cpwj9xs
Reply
-2
#39 to #26 - scruffyguy (07/12/2015) [-]
Explain to me why a business owner shouldnt be allowed to refuse service to ******* ? Why cant ******* go make their own businesses?
Reply
+2
User avatar #42 to #39 - theluppijackal (07/12/2015) [-]
One store refusing ******* isn't bad.
Two fine.
Whatever

But what happens when half the stores in town refuse to serve ******* ? Or hell, what about small towns with no out of town transportation that have all of 2-3 stores to stock necessities, such as the one in the above link.

That certainly applies to my town which only has one corner grocery store, perhaps only double the size of your average gas station store, with slightly more variety. The only bus that goes in and out of town is for seniors. If that store refused to serve a certain group, that group would basically be ****** unless they wanted to travel 15 miles every time they needed something.

It's difficult to conceptualize because we live in the modern era with superstores like walmart and cars are the norm. But read a book about blacks in the 50s. Or consider small towns such as mine. They'd be ****** if they needed something on hand because most stores and restaurants refused to service them.

We decided as a society that if you are to run a business, you have to leave personal convictions at the door. Otherwise why not allow discrimination in hiring? Refuse to hire gay people. That'll go well in the south, gay people won't be able to get jobs.

You are absolutely free to have your belief that ******* are subhuman criminals. But if you wanna run a business, to serve the public, you have to go by certain rules and regulations. You have to follow tax laws, can't do bait and switch, false advertising, and you can't decide who you want to serve because it can very easily lead to those who you refuse to serve not being able to survive in a capitalistic society where trade and commerce reigns.
Reply
+1
User avatar #48 to #42 - riddari (07/12/2015) [-]
Well, here where I live the law says that if it has a price sticker on it, you can't say no to a buyer (unless it's alcohol/cigs that a minor or a drunk person want to buy). This gives a nice middle ground, because on one hand you are not refused necessary goods, like groceries, but if someone came to your bakery and wanted a cake in a shape of a giant horsecock, you could say no because it's treated as a service.

It isn't perfect, sure, but at least gives the most freedom to business owners while retaining the customer's ability to satisfy wants and needs effectively.
Reply
+9
#14 - endospore (07/12/2015) [-]
"You don't have to change the laws, if you don't like it, vote with your wallet! Boycott the business, that's how capitalism works."
One boycott and one closed business later...
"You're the opressors now! You're terrible, how dare you force a business to close?"
Reply
-1
#18 to #14 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
Voting with your wallet and getting the government to shut down/fine a bakery who wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a gay person are two different things.
Reply
-1
#34 to #18 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
That's not what he's saying. He's saying the business lost money and was forced to shut down.
Reply
+4
User avatar #30 - inuares (07/12/2015) [-]
Its bad for business to deny service to gays because everyone's a massive ****** faggot these days.
Reply
+2
#50 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
That's not how that works.

And are you actually trying to push a political agenda on FunnyJunk? That's just embarrassing.
Reply
+3
User avatar #32 - JHoYouKnow (07/12/2015) [-]
Yeah! Like in the 70s when the blacks got all the power because racists had to serve them or shut down
Reply
+3
#22 - stickandmove (07/12/2015) [-]
Believing in traditional marriage != denying service to people exclusively on the basis of their sexual preference or orientation.

What bastards they are for wanting equal rights. Next they'll be asking for interracial marriage! ABSURD!
Reply
0
#58 to #22 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
you been eatin' up that left narrative with a double-wide fork I see.
Reply
+2
#64 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
What about people closing their businesses on gay people? Hardly fair either

Discrimination is ******* wrong. Is that hard to get for conservatives?
Reply
+1
User avatar #70 to #64 - nigalthornberry (07/12/2015) [-]
I think that it should be under the right to refuse service. It's the businesses loss anyway
Reply
0
User avatar #73 to #70 - bokkos (07/12/2015) [-]
You walk into a mechanic, ask for a wheel realignment. He takes one look at your True Religion jeans and baseball hat with the sticker still one it, and he simply says no. Your money is good, you're a nice guy, but you're dressed like a young preppy douche.
Too many people with too many problems to run a society like that.
Reply
+1
User avatar #74 to #73 - nigalthornberry (07/12/2015) [-]
His choice tho
Reply
+2
User avatar #36 - KEpToK (07/12/2015) [-]
Yeah, them homo's should stop oppressing us with their right to marry each other!

...

I wonder if people realize how utterly retarded they sound. Canada has had gay marriage for 10 years and we haven't burnt down yet.
Reply
+1
User avatar #78 - zombiehero (07/12/2015) [-]
Fun Fact: People have just as much right to oppose gay marriage as we do to support it.
Fun Fact: People have the right to believe whatever ignorant **** they want.

We may not like them, They may not like us. But if we shut the **** up and leave each other alone the world will be a more peaceful place. So long as what you believe isn't used as an excuse to hurt or kill yourself or others, I do not care.
Reply
0
#52 - anon (07/12/2015) [-]
Holy **** have you never heard of discrimination laws?
You do NOT have a right to discriminate against someone simply because it's your "traditional values", doesn't matter if it's cause they're gay, white, black, have a different life style to you. Up until recently certain groups got a free pass on discrimination and that was not okay.

Your allowed to have your religions and beliefs, but once you start using them to impeach on others rights is when you need to kindly **** off.
Reply
+1
User avatar #61 to #52 - brokentrucker ONLINE (07/12/2015) [-]
Having a business that doesn't cater to a particular group does not fall under discrimination laws. It is not someones' right to have a wedding cake, or a dress, or etc, etc.

It is, however, bad business.
Reply
+1
#37 - akittywithaguitar (07/12/2015) [-]
That post history.

Totally not a user with an agenda.

Reply
+1
#38 to #37 - scruffyguy (07/12/2015) [-]
We all have an agenda. Better to man up and own it than to lie and say you dont have one.
Reply
0
User avatar #40 to #38 - akittywithaguitar (07/12/2015) [-]
It's just funny, seeing how quite a few of his posts are related to liberal bashing and whatnot.

I keep my political leanings away from this site. I come here for laughs or porn on the **** section. I had to stop browsing the frontpage because it's mostly political related. I just want to ******* laugh.
Reply
0
#41 to #40 - scruffyguy (07/12/2015) [-]
I get you, I respect that.
Reply
0
#9 - insanemanoo (07/12/2015) [-]
"Bu-....but oppression in the name of 'tolerance and progressiveness' is perfectly fine, as long as we're oppressing the 'bad guys'."
Reply
-1
User avatar #6 - trollmobile ONLINE (07/12/2015) [-]
ah yes, someone that has to remind you so much that they're right, that they name themselves "logical common sense"
i refer you to comment #4.
Reply
0
#75 - nagafever (07/12/2015) [-]
**nagafever used "*roll picture*"**
**nagafever rolled image**
0
#25 - theluppijackal has deleted their comment [-]
12>
[ 81 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)