Gay couple asked to reverse shirt at Dollywood

[Missileman]

And you would agree that we as Americans can exercise our rights any time we wish, correct?

Surely...and I expect no more complaints from you when some silly atheist group exercises their right to raise a stink about some Christian thing.

[ConHog]

Surely...and I expect no more complaints from you when some silly atheist group exercises their right to raise a stink about some Christian thing.

I have never "raised a stink" about such. Everyone has the freedom of speech, HOWEVER that doesn't mean a place of business has to let you exercise that right on their property.

[Trigg]

Are you really trying to compare "marriage is so gay" to "I hate fags"? Really?

The park asked them to turn the shirt around because it might offend someone. It's as simple as that.

So yes, I think they are compareable.

[Gunny]

Just...WOW.

By your logic, govt shouldn't be able to make murder ON YOUR PROPERTY illegal.

Studied the constitution for 8 years, did you? Good lord...

Just ... WOW.

Your "analogy" ... ummmm ... isn't a valid one? Ridiculous as a matter of fact.

I can't help it if you don't understand the consequences of your own ideas. You don't want the govt to tell you what you can do on your own property. Think it through. Before you post.

Perhaps YOU need to think your statement through. It's nonsense. The government regulating crime does NOT compare to a telling others how they will behave on your property in any way. You are legally responsible for your property and what happens on it; therefore, theoretically, YOU make the rules as to the behavior allowed on it.

You're not allowed to commit crimes on your property. Telling gays they aren't allowed to advertise their aberrant sexual lifestyle on your property is not a crime.

How many kids have been sent home from school for wearing Christian tee's? What about THEIR rights? This goes back to the other thread. While you're thinking through your nonsensical, so-called "analogy", ask yourself what mindset is it you possess that makes you think only aberrant minorities have rights, or that they should have "more" rights than the majority?

[ConHog]

Perhaps YOU need to think your statement through. It's nonsense. The government regulating crime does NOT compare to a telling others how they will behave on your property in any way. You are legally responsible for your property and what happens on it; therefore, theoretically, YOU make the rules as to the behavior allowed on it.

You're not allowed to commit crimes on your property. Telling gays they aren't allowed to advertise their aberrant sexual lifestyle on your property is not a crime.

How many kids have been sent home from school for wearing Christian tee's? What about THEIR rights? This goes back to the other thread. While you're thinking through your nonsensical, so-called "analogy", ask yourself what mindset is it you possess that makes you think only aberrant minorities have rights, or that they should have "more" rights than the majority?

You must spread more reputation around before adding to Gunny , blah blah....

[Gunny]

Holy shit! They've got bonafide clairvoyants employed at Dollywood? S'pose they'll tell me what the next powerball numbers are going to be?

STILL trying to make your arguments playing semantics, huh? Most successful business know who the majority crowd they cater to is. Or, it could just be offensive to the owner. What's it matter? People are hired to make judgment calls and given guidelines to make them.

Your MO is cut -n- paste semantics that could be used to question ANY set of rules and/or judgment call, but is actually no valid argument at all.

Uhh, yeah!

No, it doesn't.

Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.

Ummm .... no.

[fj1200]

By your logic, govt shouldn't be able to make murder ON YOUR PROPERTY illegal.

The government is there to enforce contracts. Dollywood contracted with patrons to NOT murder them, they also contracted with them to enforce the dress code.

[Gunny]

Surely...and I expect no more complaints from you when some silly atheist group exercises their right to raise a stink about some Christian thing.

Another bullshit attempt at analogy. Atheist groups attack Christianity when and where found trying to force their religion on Christians. A far cry from a private establishment having its own rules and enforcing them.

But then, the latter wouldn't work for atheists, would it? They'd never get any attention because Christians just wouldn't support their establishments, so they have to go out seeking something Christian and find offense no matter how much twisting of fact and truth they have to do.

[ConHog]

STILL trying to make your arguments playing semantics, huh? Most successful business know who the majority crowd they cater to is. Or, it could just be offensive to the owner. What's it matter? People are hired to make judgment calls and given guidelines to make them.

Your MO is cut -n- paste semantics that could be used to question ANY set of rules and/or judgment call, but is actually no valid argument at all.

Now Gunny, you KNOW that the fact of the matter is that what they are really pissed about is that someone stood up and said "no you will NOT do something that is offensive to conservative Christians, not on our property" , bet you anything these assholes would be cheering if the same people had asked someone to remove a Jesus tee shirt.

[KartRacerBoy]

The government is there to enforce contracts. Dollywood contracted with patrons to NOT murder them, they also contracted with them to enforce the dress code.

Now you're jsut making stuff up cz you're envious of my curly locks and access to hair care products.

Go back early in the thread to see why I made the response to ConHog about constitutional authority to make law about civil matters and criminal matters.

And I've seen how you southerners dress. Dress code. my ass. Tallk about arbitrary and capricious.

[Nukeman]

Are you really trying to compare "marriage is so gay" to "I hate fags"? Really?

Yes they both have "DOUBLE" meanings or do you contest that.. Both can be found offensive by others do you contest that???

Offensive to whom?

Any person that is for marriage!! Me for one.

Holy shit! They've got bonafide clairvoyants employed at Dollywood? S'pose they'll tell me what the next powerball numbers are going to be?

No they know their clientel.. You know those good southern people that ahve a shit load of family and kids....

Uhh, yeah!

Uhh NO

Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.

Not really. anything i find offensive on MY property is my right to ask to either comply with MY standards or leave.. Its MINE!!!!!!

For starters, maybe nobody found her shirt offensive.

I found it offensive, but I think " I hate fags" is hilarious.. Does that mean I can wear the later!?!?!?!?!?

[ConHog]

Yes they both have "DOUBLE" meanings or do you contest that.. Both can be found offensive by others do you contest that???
Any person that is for marriage!! Me for one.

No they know their clientel.. You know those good southern people that ahve a shit load of family and kids....

Uhh NO

Not really. anything i find offensive on MY property is my right to ask to either comply with MY standards or leave.. Its MINE!!!!!!

I found it offensive, but I think " I hate fags" is hilarious.. Does that mean I can wear the later!?!?!?!?!?

You know , with certainty, that these assholes would be defending Dollywood had they asked someone turn a t shirt that read "I hate fags" inside out. It's fact.

[fj1200]

Now you're jsut making stuff up cz you're envious of my curly locks and access to hair care products.

Go back early in the thread to see why I made the response to ConHog about constitutional authority to make law about civil matters and criminal matters.

And I've seen how you southerners dress. Dress code. my ass. Tallk about arbitrary and capricious.

I did, your line of "reasoning" left a little to be desired. My rationale rocked.

Re: your hair, I may have been wrong about Dippity Doo. Your proximity to Gary, IN could be a determining factor.

[KartRacerBoy]

I did, your line of "reasoning" left a little to be desired. My rationale rocked.

Re: your hair, I may have been wrong about Dippity Doo. Your proximity to Gary, IN could be a determining factor.

You are a bitter, bitter, very tall man, Gandolf.

And as to my constitutional reasoning, since the power of federal govt to legislate both criminal and civil laws is rooted in the commerce clause, if the federal govt lacks the reach to legislate in one area, it very likely lacks power in the other. Go back and read the 19th and early 20th century caselaw (pre1938ish).

So there, hair envy guy.

[fj1200]

You are a bitter, bitter, very tall man, Gandolf.

And as to my constitutional reasoning, since the power of federal govt to legislate both criminal and civil laws is rooted in the commerce clause, if the federal govt lacks the reach to legislate in one area, it very likely lacks power in the other. Go back and read the 19th and early 20th century caselaw (pre1938ish).

So there, hair envy guy.

I've seen your hair, the envy is in your mind... but I am taller than you, not to mention far better looking.

I didn't really question that aspect of constitutional reasoning, nobody questioned government "regulation" of murder they did defend the private property rights of DW. DW also didn't discriminate against them even if orientation were protected, they merely regulated their speech which IMO they have a right to do.