Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,699
16,139
Here is the most concise article on it, including citations. Feel free to ignore it in your normal retarded way.

"The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)



George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)



Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.



The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
Umm, did you post the wrong thing? I thought you were supposed to give me mountains of quotes from the founding fathers indicating they didn't really mean what they wrote about the freedom of religion. What I see when I click that spoiler tag is an article about how a lot of them may not have been Christian. The two ideas are only tangentially related.

I was expecting something more like this
From James Madison:
The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Government, and
exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both
 

Heylel

Trakanon Raider
3,602
430
That Madison quote is essentially a condemnation of the so-called religious freedom bills being thrown about in red states today.
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,699
16,139
That's a bit of a stretch. Based on that quote, I imagine madison would come to the same conclusion I did that the laws aren't needed. But I didn't promise mountains of quotes proving one point or another. I was just giving him an example of what he promised.
 

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
Not only that they aren't needed, but that they are to be avoided as much as possible because they are "injurious to both" government and religion.
 

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,563
29,810
You ever read a post and see so much wrong with it you realize it would take you longer to bother rebutting it than you even care to engage in? I know I'm looking at one right now.

You don't even know what an LOD score is, dude. Get the fuck out of here.

An LOD score is the most frequent means of demonstrating linkage between two gene locations, meaning that they are passed on together through reproduction. A score higher than 3.0 indicates that two genes are 1000 times more likely to be linked than unlinked.
I know what a lod score is. I talked about mlod scores specifically. Since a lod score is a statistical analysis, I figured a mlod score would be too, but I didn't know, because it is a specific program used for a specific field of science that I do not know the math behind. You kinda talked about something different than what I said here, and explained something unrelated to my complaints. But that's okay, it's not really important to the discussion that interests me.

I mean when they are pointing to regions with LOD scores bordering on 3.0 and you're claiming that this doesn't meet their "own genetic standard of standard of significance", clearly you need to just stop posting at that point.
That was the claim that they made about their paper. I mean you're a really busy person with all your PHD genetics research, so maybe you let a few parts of the article slip by you when you read it. But let me quote your article. For anyone interested, it's in the first paragraph of the discussion section (page 276 of the original journal), and is related to their strongest finding in particular.
This score falls just short of Lander and Kruglyak's (1995) criteria for genomewide significance.
But that's okay, it's not really important to the discussion that interests me.

That doesn't happen. When they point out issues like "these results may not apply outside our selection criteria" what they are doing is playing a form of devil's advocate, offering up potential routes for future research, and couching their conclusions in language that does not assert absolute knowledge claims. Because that's how science works. This isn't theism, where we make absolute knowledge claims and pretend to know things we don't know. The correlation between these locations and homosexual behavior is very significant.
Oh, I thought when you read scientific papers, you can only make the claims of what's true and whats not based on the science you get. I mean, it's kinda silly if you can make claims based on the science you don't get. But you're a phd and well... But that's okay, it's not really important to the discussion that interests me.

Yeah, we can, actually. Homosexual behavior is clearly demonstrated to have a correlation with genetic predisposition. There are also epigenetic concerns, that may be where the real action is happening in terms of defining who is homosexual and who is not, and to what extent they are homosexual in terms of the Kinsey scale. That's still being worked on, but the clear correlation between homosexual proclivity and genetic underpinnings is confirmed by this study.
Hey, this is exactly what I said. We're agreeing here, yay. Oh wait, I forgot.... But that's okay, it's not really important to the discussion that interests me.

Perhaps you forgot the discussion I was interested in? I dunno, maybe well get to it when I get back. I just didn't want to leave you completely empty handed when I had time to stop by. So don't clench your buttocks too hard, it just makes things hurt more.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
MLOD is the same as LOD scoring. The M merely stands for MAXIMIZED LOD scoring, which is conducted across a five dimensional parameter space (4 genetic model parameters and a recombination fraction parameter). Its just a more rigorous method of LOD scoring than the standard LOD score, and that's why all your blah blah blahing about the scores coming in at 2.7 and 2.9 are meaningless, as these scores would be over 3.0 in a standard LOD scoring model.

you can only make the claims of what's true and whats not based on the science you get.
This is Creationist style rhetoric that displays only your complete lack of understanding what evidence is.

Literally, everything after this in your post is just you blathering.

You can try to rewrite your position to pretend that you and I are in agreement, everyone reading the thread can see that's just your sad pathetic attempt to shift goal posts and put yourself more in line with my demonstrated, factually based position. Your argument that sexuality is a choice is soundly, roundly, refuted, and attempting to change your position now is simply your cowardice on display.

That's all the response you're getting from me in relation to that post, because those are literally the only things you've said in that post worth addressing.

Save yourself, myself, and everyone else time, and don't bother replying again until you can demonstrate, with evidence, that sexuality is on any level achoice. Because its not. And the science refutes this claim soundly.

Its time for Furry toput up, or shut up. Trying to criticize my position, that is actually the only position in this thread supported with any evidence, while failing to put forward any evidence of your own besides your base assertions and your goal post shifting, isn't going to help you at this point. You are, for all intents and purposes, done here without some evidence to support your claim that sexuality is in any way a consciouschoice.
 

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,977
31,218
All the places aladain listed are attempting to cater to a certain group, trying to provide a specific experience.
That's exactly what it is. For being in a group who feels that a photo ID is a racist requirement because "blacks will be dis-proportionally affected" even though the photo ID is free, you sure seem to have no problem on businesses catering to specific experiences that dis-proportionally keep blacks out (for example).

Baking cakes for All Straight People does not pass that test.
I thought we already established that the law doesn't allow them to do this. It was my understanding (and confirmed by others in this thread) that the issue is simply baking a cakefor a specific event that is against someones religious beliefs, and the issue IS NOTwe don't bake cakes for gays. Like my gay bar example (which I believe was misunderstood) the issue wasn't that straights were not allowed in (nor did I ever say that) -- they are, but the issue is that as a straight personyou act appropriately to the desires of the establishment. Maybe this article sheds some light on getting my point across:Straight People's Yelp Reviews of Gay Bars Are Even More Clueless Than You Might Think - Mic

Gay bars are spaces for LGBT individuals to relax and immerse themselves in an environment that reflects their own identity for once. And while straight people, of course, should not be banned from gay bars, as that would be blatant discrimination, they should be respectful of the fact that the spaces they are entering are still, well, gay.
That's it. You go into a christian bakery, you should be respectful of the fact that you're entering a christian bakery, so don't ask for a cake with a pentagram on it, or two guys kissing. You go to a gay bar, you should be respectful of the fact you're entering a gay bar, so don't run around calling them fags or get insulted when a dude hits on you.

If the gay couple came in and demanded a different type of cake, the baker could make a case that it's outside what they offer, but there is no way that baking a normal cake for two homos is placing an undue burden on their business.
What's sad about this is that what will happen in the end, if the bakery isforcedto bake a cake against their beliefs, is that they simply will put forth minimal effort in making the cake, which is a worse outcome than if they just went down the street and hurts more people in the end, and there simply would be no way to prove that.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
What's sad about this is that what will happen in the end, if the bakery isforcedto bake a cake against their beliefs, is that they simply will put forth minimal effort in making the cake, which is a worse outcome than if they just went down the street and hurts more people in the end, and there simply would be no way to prove that.
What do you do when down the street is allowed to deny you service as well and so is around the corner and you are entirely denied the same level of service as straight individuals.
 

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,977
31,218
What do you do when down the street is allowed to deny you service as well and so is around the corner and you are entirely denied the same level of service as straight individuals.
I'd imagine the same thing if every restraunt decided they were suit and tie.

It's not going to happen. This isn't 1940.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Businesses are in the job of serving customers, not the other way around.

The argument that consumers must essentially research every business related to a product they want to buy to ensure that their ideological world views are in sync is so absurdist as to not even warrant taking seriously.

The idea that customers must conform to business owner's desires instead of the other way around is nonsensical.

Should someone have to verify that they're an all organic consuming vegan to shop at a Whole Foods type store run by hippy vegans? Of course not. The very premise is silly. The cake shit is a distraction from the broader context here. I can only imagine the people seriously trying to make the argument that customers must conform to businesses instead of the other way around are so detached from reality that their opinions really cease to even be relevant.

If I want to go buy a pair of shoes, and I believe X, I should not have to worry that the owner of the business I choose to go shoe shopping in believes Y and I will be tossed out on the street and refused service for not conforming to that world view as well.

It is absurd on its face.

You want to sell people shit and make a profit? Great. Then you service anyone who comes through your door acting like a decent human being. Its that simple. Dress codes at high scale restaurants are not comparable to human sexual preferences. That entire route of thinking is pure non analogous non sequitor.

I'll give you a great example. In Lexington there's exactly 1 place to buy hospital scrubs from. It services every major hospital in the city's workers. The owners of that place are rabidly Christian, to the point that they have Christian music on the radio blaring all day, and placards full of Christian passages, the 10 commandments, etc. all over their walls.

My wife and I are atheists. She works at a local hospital.

Should we have to conform to their religious beliefs to purchase scrubs for my wife to be able to do her job? Should all non believers in our town not be able to acquire easily scrubs for their job simply because the business owners of that company happen to be batshit fucking crazy Christians? Its very clearly a "Christian" business, by Aladain's standards.

Why shouldmy wifehave to worshiptheir godto be able to buy the clothes she needs to doher job?
 

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,817
32,066
Umm, did you post the wrong thing? I thought you were supposed to give me mountains of quotes from the founding fathers indicating they didn't really mean what they wrote about the freedom of religion. What I see when I click that spoiler tag is an article about how a lot of them may not have been Christian. The two ideas are only tangentially related.

I was expecting something more like this
From James Madison:
The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Government, and
exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both
Oh, look a straw man argument. Well at least its more effort than I thought you would put into being intellectually dishonest. Are you seriously going to suggest you are too retarded to see their general views on religion and its relationship to government and civilized culture? I guess we both know the answer is "yes".
 

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,897
Businesses are in the job of serving customers, not the other way around.

The argument that consumers must essentially research every business related to a product they want to buy to ensure that their ideological world views are in sync is so absurdist as to not even warrant taking seriously.

The idea that customers must conform to business owner's desires instead of the other way around is nonsensical.

Should someone have to verify that they're an all organic consuming vegan to shop at a Whole Foods type store run by hippy vegans? Of course not. The very premise is silly. The cake shit is a distraction from the broader context here. I can only imagine the people seriously trying to make the argument that customers must conform to businesses instead of the other way around are so detached from reality that their opinions really cease to even be relevant.

If I want to go buy a pair of shoes, and I believe X, I should not have to worry that the owner of the business I choose to go shoe shopping in believes Y and I will be tossed out on the street and refused service for not conforming to that world view as well.

It is absurd on its face.

You want to sell people shit and make a profit? Great. Then you service anyone who comes through your door acting like a decent human being. Its that simple. Dress codes at high scale restaurants are not comparable to human sexual preferences. That entire route of thinking is pure non analogous non sequitor.

I'll give you a great example. In Lexington there's exactly 1 place to buy hospital scrubs from. It services every major hospital in the city's workers. The owners of that place are rabidly Christian, to the point that they have Christian music on the radio blaring all day, and placards full of Christian passages, the 10 commandments, etc. all over their walls.

My wife and I are atheists. She works at a local hospital.

Should we have to conform to their religious beliefs to purchase scrubs for my wife to be able to do her job? Should all non believers in our town not be able to acquire easily scrubs for their job simply because the business owners of that company happen to be batshit fucking crazy Christians? Its very clearly a "Christian" business, by Aladain's standards.

Why shouldmy wifehave to worshiptheir godto be able to buy the clothes she needs to doher job?
I agree with all of this. I feel like we're back on page 5.

Businesses (should) thrive or die at the whims of the people, not the other way around.
 

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,977
31,218
Businesses are in the job of serving customers, not the other way around.
I agree to a point. I think if you are a publicaly traded company, or otherwise a company with a large social impact, you certainly do have to play by a different set of rules. Wal Mart for example should have to play by a different rules than JoeShmoes Bakery - and even Hobby Lobby (Which is not publicly traded, and does not have the same social "impacts" that Wal Mart does on a community). This is why things like equal opportunity do not come into play until you have a certain number of employees.

A small, mom and pop business does things differently. Their taxes are generally done in house. They usually work for little salaries if at all. Family members usually help out and end up being a family run business. Expecting and demanding this kind of business to be held to the same standards as say a publicly traded grocery store like Kroger is really silly - because they aren't on so many facets of running businesses.

The argument that consumers must essentially research every business related to a product they want to buy to ensure that their ideological world views are in sync is so absurdist as to not even warrant taking seriously.
I've never made this argument, and I agree it is absurd. However, I still believe that its not unacceptable to go into a mom and pop shop and be refused service for... a variety of reasons.

The idea that customers must conform to business owner's desires instead of the other way around is nonsensical.
You do this every time you go into a business. No Shirt no Shoes no service. When you order things, do you pay for them? If you go to a place like Alamo Draft House (if you dont know what that is I feel sorry for you) and bring your children at the times there are no children allowed? Do you run through the isles at high speed? Do you curse like a drunken sailor without regard to those around you? When a business says "No Cell Phones", do you turn off your cell phone? If you want to return something, do you conform to their return policy or simply demand refund without a receipt? Do you spit pieces of your food out you don't want right on the table when dining at a restaurant (Fun fact: this shit happens all the time in China)? Do you talk in a movie theater, spoiling the movie for everyone else? For places that hold you at the door to "check" your receipt before leaving, do you walk by them and ignore them or stop and let them check it? Do you open sealed merchandise to inspect it before buying? Do you throw away food and drink if food and drink aren't allowed?

Every store has policies and rules customers must conform to, otherwise, don't enter the store.

Should someone have to verify that they're an all organic consuming vegan to shop at a Whole Foods type store run by hippy vegans? Of course not. The very premise is silly.
No, but this also is not protected by the Constitution, which is another issue entirely.

The cake shit is a distraction from the broader context here. I can only imagine the people seriously trying to make the argument that customers must conform to businesses instead of the other way around are so detached from reality that their opinions really cease to even be relevant. If I want to go buy a pair of shoes, and I believe X, I should not have to worry that the owner of the business I choose to go shoe shopping in believes Y and I will be tossed out on the street and refused service for not conforming to that world view as well.
And in this context, for the 5th time, it isn't what the law is about. I am really unsure why these points continually get brought up.

You want to sell people shit and make a profit? Great. Then you service anyone who comes through your door acting like a decent human being. Its that simple. Dress codes at high scale restaurants are not comparable to human sexual preferences. That entire route of thinking is pure non analogous non sequitor.
And for the 6th time I agree you service anyone who comes through your door acting like a decent human being. I AGREE. Dress codes at high scale restraints are disproportionately unfair to minorities.

I'll give you a great example. In Lexington there's exactly 1 place to buy hospital scrubs from. It services every major hospital in the city's workers. The owners of that place are rabidly Christian, to the point that they have Christian music on the radio blaring all day, and placards full of Christian passages, the 10 commandments, etc. all over their walls.

My wife and I are atheists. She works at a local hospital.

Should we have to conform to their religious beliefs to purchase scrubs for my wife to be able to do her job? Should all non believers in our town not be able to acquire easily scrubs for their job simply because the business owners of that company happen to be batshit fucking crazy Christians? Its very clearly a "Christian" business, by Aladain's standards.
Of course not, because, for the 7th time... this isn't what the law is about! Why do we keep circling to this? This has nothing to do with simply serving someone. They should not be permitted to refuse to service someone.

Why shouldmy wifehave to worshiptheir godto be able to buy the clothes she needs to doher job?
She doesn't have to. This has nothing to do with service (for the 8th time). A more appropriate analogy would be (assuming this place makes custom scrubs): Your wife calls the local scrubs place and places an order for 500custom madeblack scrubs with red pentagrams and inverted crosses on them, for a group of satanic nurses that work in the hospitals around the community.

Do they take the order?
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Dude, what fucking belief are you talking about? What Christian belief prohibits baking a cake or otherwise providing services for gay people? Should they also be exempt from taxes if they will go to support marriage registration? Why can't they just turn away Muslims now? We're at a point where people are literally making shit up and deciding they are "beliefs" that need legislation that marginalizes a portion of society. MURRICA
 

BoldW

Molten Core Raider
2,081
25
Dude, what fucking belief are you talking about? What Christian belief prohibits baking a cake or otherwise providing services for gay people?
Bro, do you even thump?

Commandment 11: Thou shalt not bake for The Gays.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
When you have to compare Satanists asking for Satanic symbols on their wedding cake to homosexuals asking for two male toppers instead of a male and female topper, you should proper re evaluate your position.

No shirts no shoes no service isn't a rule that business owners do because they want to.

That's a government health code mandate.

Children in strip clubs and bars is also illegal

Do you see a pattern here, cause I do. You keep bringing up a massive list of non sequitors, in the format of a fallacy of verbosity/gish gallop.

These aren't cogent arguments Aladain. They are straw grasping because you can't come up with truly comparable analogies.

The actual closest analogy is preventing blacks from eating at the same counters, telling them to sit at the backs of busses, etc. and that shit is discriminatory business practices, and a violation of the civil rights of the people involved.