I find it really appalling that GAYS want special rights but want to take away the rights of non gays.....you know ,the right for a strait person to have an opinion and when asked give that opinion without fear of punishment.
I can only hope that this upcoming fight be moved to Nevada.
When some massive earthquake happens there and the state drops into the sea who they will blame....then....

http://www.yardbarker.com/boxing/art...riage/10805132

When you're not in a protected class, you're second class. The new 'equal'.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

When you're not in a protected class, you're second class. The new 'equal'.

What gets me is the (gays), "demand our respect" but refuse to show respect to others that don't agree with their lifestyle or wants. People have a right to have an opinion and state what it is when asked.

The boxer believes in God and the advice given in the Bible. Hurry for him!
I believe that is one of the major reasons for the Flax about his opinion.

Many people still don't agree with their lifestyle, They need to accept that fact!

It's the liberal thang. For the hardcore, if you don't agree with them, obviously you're not 'listening', or 'informed'. And if you don't toe the line, well then you are not 'respecting' them.

Straight outta' the Left's playbook.

When the left cannot mandate thought through legislation/media/public pressure - they resort to the bullet.

All animals are made equal - but some animals are more equal than others.

so, let me get this strait.... you are upset that this bigoted boxer gets to express his opinion and in return the owners of the mall express theirs by banning him from their property.

where exactly is the problem?

boxer boys intolerance of a natural quirk of nature and desire to force his dogma onto others is OK and somehow being intolerant of his intolerance and bigotry is morally bankrupt?

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

so, let me get this strait.... you are upset that this bigoted boxer gets to express his opinion and in return the owners of the mall express theirs by banning him from their property.

where exactly is the problem?

boxer boys intolerance of a natural quirk of nature and desire to force his dogma onto others is OK and somehow being intolerant of his intolerance and bigotry is morally bankrupt?

The Mall owners are well within their rights. However - why turn away Pacqiaou and the potential money his presence maight bring - over something so trivial?

Manny is not orchestrating genocide...

the more I think about the responses in this thread the more it sickens me... and goat, your post surprise me.

unless this mall is publicly owned I dont see an issue here. that boxer was certainly free to express his opinion, why shouldn't the owners of the mall express theirs?

aside from the fact that the boxer is a bigoted hipocrit trying to force an ideology from an antiquated man written collection of intolerant and primitive ideas, he has the gall to be upset that the owners of the mall dare to ban someone they disagree with from their own property?

I guess I am suddenly useing the liberal play book because I don't let Kkk members, child molesters, rapist, murders or thieves into my house because I disagree with their beliefs.

Originally Posted by craab

The Mall owners are well within their rights. However - why turn away Pacqiaou and the potential money his presence maight bring - over something so trivial?

Manny is not orchestrating genocide...

to them the loss is obviously worth the integrity they preserve by doing so

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

the more I think about the responses in this thread the more it sickens me... and goat, your post surprise me.

unless this mall is publicly owned I dont see an issue here. that boxer was certainly free to express his opinion, why shouldn't the owners of the mall express theirs?

aside from the fact that the boxer is a bigoted hipocrit trying to force an ideology from an antiquated man written collection of intolerant and primitive ideas, he has the gall to be upset that the owners of the mall dare to ban someone they disagree with from their own property?

I guess I am suddenly useing the liberal play book because I don't let Kkk members, child molesters, rapist, murders or thieves into my house because I disagree with their beliefs.

What is Pacquiaou "forcing" on anyone? He simply expressed his personal opinion. On Filipino soil no less.

Do you disagree with free speech?

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

the more I think about the responses in this thread the more it sickens me... and goat, your post surprise me.

unless this mall is publicly owned I dont see an issue here. that boxer was certainly free to express his opinion, why shouldn't the owners of the mall express theirs?

aside from the fact that the boxer is a bigoted hipocrit trying to force an ideology from an antiquated man written collection of intolerant and primitive ideas, he has the gall to be upset that the owners of the mall dare to ban someone they disagree with from their own property?

I guess I am suddenly useing the liberal play book because I don't let Kkk members, child molesters, rapist, murders or thieves into my house because I disagree with their beliefs.

agreed ... while I don't particularly support the mall ownership in their response, I am in full support of their right as private owners to exclude whomever they want to exclude from their property.

They do so at their own risk, and it is their right.

One of the prices you pay for living in a free society is having to support the rights of those you disagree with .... it's certainly a price I'm willing to pay.

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

the more I think about the responses in this thread the more it sickens me... and goat, your post surprise me.

unless this mall is publicly owned I dont see an issue here. that boxer was certainly free to express his opinion, why shouldn't the owners of the mall express theirs?

aside from the fact that the boxer is a bigoted hipocrit trying to force an ideology from an antiquated man written collection of intolerant and primitive ideas, he has the gall to be upset that the owners of the mall dare to ban someone they disagree with from their own property?

I guess I am suddenly useing the liberal play book because I don't let Kkk members, child molesters, rapist, murders or thieves into my house because I disagree with their beliefs.

And just who did Manny threaten? NOBODY!!! But the QUEER loby doesn't have to use the truth, just them accusing him is sufficient grounds for their statements. And the LEFT fully believes in POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEECH because that is another way to control the conversation and make their opinion appear stronger so they can force their MINORITY choice on the majority. Suppress peoples right to speak is the first tool of tyrants. Thus the Second Amendment. Freedom of Expression.

Funny how the left always want to free us by silencing us, and never understood the conservative ideas of defending the right of others to be wrong. In other words - you have the right to have a wrong or foolish or just plain stupid opinion without having to force me to agree with it. And vice versa....

Originally Posted by kf2qd

And just who did Manny threaten? NOBODY!!! But the QUEER loby doesn't have to use the truth, just them accusing him is sufficient grounds for their statements. And the LEFT fully believes in POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEECH because that is another way to control the conversation and make their opinion appear stronger so they can force their MINORITY choice on the majority. Suppress peoples right to speak is the first tool of tyrants. Thus the Second Amendment. Freedom of Expression.

Funny how the left always want to free us by silencing us, and never understood the conservative ideas of defending the right of others to be wrong. In other words - you have the right to have a wrong or foolish or just plain stupid opinion without having to force me to agree with it. And vice versa....

And now, you're no better than the hypocritical left.

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

so, let me get this strait.... you are upset that this bigoted boxer gets to express his opinion and in return the owners of the mall express theirs by banning him from their property.

where exactly is the problem?

boxer boys intolerance of a natural quirk of nature and desire to force his dogma onto others is OK and somehow being intolerant of his intolerance and bigotry is morally bankrupt?

Why can't we be intolerant of their intolerance and willingness to try force their dogma onto others? It's self evident intolerance is already ok, as they demonstrate.