Misrepresenting Facts

So having questioned TA on his stance RE logical rebuttals, and having once again mentioned his deliberate removal of a fact-based rebuttal to his claim that businesses can simply hang up a sign and refuse to serve anyone they like, I find myself looking at this:

We have rejected a couple of Darthtimon’s posts because he feels that local and state laws trump constitutional rights and that the only person’s constitutional rights that matter are those that allow for the sexually alternative practicing people to do as they please regardless of how others feel.

People like darthtimon feel that the standards of right and wrong, good and evil and morality and immorality are wrong and that they must change to include sin, evil, perversion and so on. We must ask why have any standard at all if people who do not want to follow the rules do not like them?

Let’s just have anarchy instead and let everyone do as they please. Of course this would mean that rapists, murders and other criminals would be free to do as they please. The sexually alternative practicing individual are very short-sighted and think that they are the only perverted and sinful practices that needs to be moved to the normal side of life.

They have yet to show any real cause why they should be exempt from the wrong side of those standards. Their selfishness alone dictates that thy are not qualified to change sides and their discrimination towards other alternatives adds more reasons for their disqualification

We will post his comments but only if they meet certain criteria and so far he is lucky to be posted at all.

This was in direct response to displaying how his position was factually wrong. Not only did he once again not allow through a comment that demonstrated this, but he proceeded to post this lovely little Strawman.

A place of business has made a commitment to public law. They have zero constitutional rights to refuse service to anyone on the grounds of gender, race, orientation and so on. This is the legal position undertaken in most parts of the world. This is also a good standard of approach. The alternative is to allow anyone and everyone to use their personal beliefs to justify whatever they want – because to use only one belief system to make policy (such as Christianity) would obviously be unfair to anyone who does not follow that belief system. Far from proposing anarchy, a system where no one’s religious beliefs trump anyone’s rights to shop or do business is in fact a strong measure of control against anarchy. What TA would push for is a system where anyone can arbitrarily refute service for any reason they choose, which really would be chaos.

The main issue though, is the standard by which TA judges evidence and behaviour. He is very fond of suggesting I support ‘sin’ and ‘evil’, yet balks at the suggestion that he should permit evidence that disproves a notion of his through, and calls this behaviour unreasonable.