Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anti-Gay Law passed in Mississippi.

Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 3:15:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A modified form of the Anti-Gay Law from Arizona has passed in Mississippi:http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

And this is not a good thing.

Let me explain

In 1946 a guy tried to do something very similar* against black people and the Supreme Court threw it out. It was tried again in 1983. Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being "affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage." As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones" tax-exempt status.

Now let me be absolutely clear about this: people of faith do not exist in a vacuum. heir businesses compete with other companies who are entitled to engage in this competition upon a level playing field. Their personnel decisions impact their employees, and their decision to refuse to do business with someone " especially for reasons such as race or sexual orientation " can fundamentally demean that individual and deny them their own right to participate equally in society.

This is why racist people like Theodore Bilbo" are not allowed to refuse to do business with African Americans, and it is why anti-gay business owners should not be given a special right to discriminate against LGBT consumers. And this is also something that the United States has understood for a very long time. The Case of Bob Jones University is not a new case at all. A whole generation of Americans spent their entire professional careers enjoying the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious liberty is an important value and it rightfully belongs in the Constitution, but it you should not allow it to be used to destroy the rights of others.

Ultimately the question facing anti-gay employees is: why it is acceptable to exclude gay people simply because of who they are, when we do not permit this sort of behavior by racists such as Bilbo. And is it fair to allow religious employers to exempt themselves from the law would be fundamentally unfair to the employees who are supposed to benefit from those laws?

*https://archive.org...
"http://en.wikipedia.org...
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:38:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let me help you figure this out...

If you have the right to demand that I bake you a cake, then I have the right to force you to attend church, mosque, or synagogue.

If you have the right to fire me because you don't like my political position on the legality of homogamy, I have the right to fire you because I don't like your political position on the legality of homosexuality.

If this doesn't make sense to you, then please justify granting the freedom of association to one group but denying it to another while championing the idea that nobody can be denied the right to participate equally in society.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 5:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe your country has already had this discussion: You don't get to decide who sits at the lunch counter.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 5:23:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, since I notice you claim to be a Christian in your profile, sir: Where does it say i the bible to ridicule and discriminate against those who sin? If you do, aren't you unwittingly denying the gift of forgiveness?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 7:13:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

What if the owner of a bakery is in the KKK and says I'm sorry but my beliefs say I shouldn't serve black people. How is that any different than someone refusing to serve gay people?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 7:30:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

If you are able to deny someone service because they are homosexual, I should be able to deny you service for being a Christian. Quid pro quo. If you expect protection from discrimination, you are expected to not discriminate.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 7:34:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 7:30:51 PM, drhead wrote:
If you are able to deny someone service because they are homosexual, I should be able to deny you service for being a Christian. Quid pro quo. If you expect protection from discrimination, you are expected to not discriminate.

Indeed, the Bible teaches that one should treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. As far as I can find there's no footnote saying 'unless they're gay'.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 7:35:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 3:15:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:
A modified form of the Anti-Gay Law from Arizona has passed in Mississippi:http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

And this is not a good thing.

Let me explain

In 1946 a guy tried to do something very similar* against black people and the Supreme Court threw it out. It was tried again in 1983. Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being "affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage." As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones" tax-exempt status.


Now let me be absolutely clear about this: people of faith do not exist in a vacuum. heir businesses compete with other companies who are entitled to engage in this competition upon a level playing field. Their personnel decisions impact their employees, and their decision to refuse to do business with someone " especially for reasons such as race or sexual orientation " can fundamentally demean that individual and deny them their own right to participate equally in society.

This is why racist people like Theodore Bilbo" are not allowed to refuse to do business with African Americans, and it is why anti-gay business owners should not be given a special right to discriminate against LGBT consumers. And this is also something that the United States has understood for a very long time. The Case of Bob Jones University is not a new case at all. A whole generation of Americans spent their entire professional careers enjoying the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious liberty is an important value and it rightfully belongs in the Constitution, but it you should not allow it to be used to destroy the rights of others.

Ultimately the question facing anti-gay employees is: why it is acceptable to exclude gay people simply because of who they are, when we do not permit this sort of behavior by racists such as Bilbo. And is it fair to allow religious employers to exempt themselves from the law would be fundamentally unfair to the employees who are supposed to benefit from those laws?

*https://archive.org...
"http://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh crap.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:20:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 7:13:22 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

What if the owner of a bakery is in the KKK and says I'm sorry but my beliefs say I shouldn't serve black people. How is that any different than someone refusing to serve gay people?

Race and sexual orientation are not comparable. Race is a physical attribute, so racial discrimination is considered irrational because physical appearance is irrelevant to one's behavior. However, sexual orientation by definition has everything to do with one's behavior, and the owner of the bakery has every right to decide what acts/behaviors he associates his business with.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:37:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:20:10 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:13:22 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

What if the owner of a bakery is in the KKK and says I'm sorry but my beliefs say I shouldn't serve black people. How is that any different than someone refusing to serve gay people?

Race and sexual orientation are not comparable. Race is a physical attribute, so racial discrimination is considered irrational because physical appearance is irrelevant to one's behavior. However, sexual orientation by definition has everything to do with one's behavior, and the owner of the bakery has every right to decide what acts/behaviors he associates his business with.

Real racists in the past and today associate inferior "behavior" with the race against which they discriminate. You think racists just don't like the color black? They think being black says something about the person, and that it says that the person is inferior.

They DO discriminate on the basis of a perceived difference in behavior.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:38:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 7:13:22 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

What if the owner of a bakery is in the KKK and says I'm sorry but my beliefs say I shouldn't serve black people. How is that any different than someone refusing to serve gay people?

Irrelevant. We are not talking about black people. We are talking about LGBTs. And while I am no expert on every religion, religious rights and freedoms being the basis of this entire argument, I have never heard of a religion that veiws blacks as sacrilege. Thus your KKK loser has no basis nor rights to support this example since religious freedom does not apply and the KKK is not a religion.

Instead of answering my question you have merely pushed it aside and asked another, irrelevant, question. As I stated above and will further digress here I care little one way or the other the out come of this issue. I merely desire that the rights of ALL peoples are respected. Not just the ones who happen to be the popular favorite of the current majority at the time. If someone could please explain these issues I had above I would be most grateful.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:43:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:38:56 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:13:22 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

What if the owner of a bakery is in the KKK and says I'm sorry but my beliefs say I shouldn't serve black people. How is that any different than someone refusing to serve gay people?

Irrelevant. We are not talking about black people. We are talking about LGBTs. And while I am no expert on every religion, religious rights and freedoms being the basis of this entire argument, I have never heard of a religion that veiws blacks as sacrilege. Thus your KKK loser has no basis nor rights to support this example since religious freedom does not apply and the KKK is not a religion.

Instead of answering my question you have merely pushed it aside and asked another, irrelevant, question. As I stated above and will further digress here I care little one way or the other the out come of this issue. I merely desire that the rights of ALL peoples are respected. Not just the ones who happen to be the popular favorite of the current majority at the time. If someone could please explain these issues I had above I would be most grateful.

The degree to which you resort to semantics and irrelevant distinctions boggles my mind. Seriously. It does.

Many Islamists would discriminate against Jews if we didn't prevent them from doing so.

Does that example satisfy you? Or is Islam not a religion either?

Goodness....
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:46:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 7:30:51 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

If you are able to deny someone service because they are homosexual, I should be able to deny you service for being a Christian. Quid pro quo. If you expect protection from discrimination, you are expected to not discriminate.

Did I ever, out of any part of my previous post, state a single time that your quid pro quo would be wrong? You merely assume that I desire gays to be refused service but would be outraged if Christians were not? Thank you for your obvious lightly thought out and assumption filled response and failure to answer any of my questions.

I would, however, answer your question. If ones religion views the followings of Christ as a sin or blasphemy, then sure why not. As I said earlier. We live in a time where if you refuse me a service such as baking me a cake I can always take my money elsewhere and get it from someone across the street. I feel like I need to keep explaining certain things. It's not like were talking about public services such as police and firefighters and doctors. They will still by law be required to serve. Were taking about private run business, of which I believe very few would actually turn away any paying costumer. Or maybe I'm just nieve.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:47:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 7:34:16 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:30:51 PM, drhead wrote:
If you are able to deny someone service because they are homosexual, I should be able to deny you service for being a Christian. Quid pro quo. If you expect protection from discrimination, you are expected to not discriminate.

Indeed, the Bible teaches that one should treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. As far as I can find there's no footnote saying 'unless they're gay'.

Men are not perfected. And everyone enterperates the bible or their version of it differently. This argument is irrelevant.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:54:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:43:25 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:38:56 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:13:22 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

What if the owner of a bakery is in the KKK and says I'm sorry but my beliefs say I shouldn't serve black people. How is that any different than someone refusing to serve gay people?

Irrelevant. We are not talking about black people. We are talking about LGBTs. And while I am no expert on every religion, religious rights and freedoms being the basis of this entire argument, I have never heard of a religion that veiws blacks as sacrilege. Thus your KKK loser has no basis nor rights to support this example since religious freedom does not apply and the KKK is not a religion.

Instead of answering my question you have merely pushed it aside and asked another, irrelevant, question. As I stated above and will further digress here I care little one way or the other the out come of this issue. I merely desire that the rights of ALL peoples are respected. Not just the ones who happen to be the popular favorite of the current majority at the time. If someone could please explain these issues I had above I would be most grateful.

The degree to which you resort to semantics and irrelevant distinctions boggles my mind. Seriously. It does.

I view this as an ad hominem. Please refrain from such mannerisms in the future.

Many Islamists would discriminate against Jews if we didn't prevent them from doing so.

And...???

Does that example satisfy you? Or is Islam not a religion either?

My goodness... My assumptions on who I am and what I believe? And i view this as somewhat of an ad hominem. "Is Islam not a religion". Pfft. Your ignorant attempts to attack my character amuse me. But you have still failed to answer any of my questions. Why, may I ask, with the hostility? Have I insulted, discriminated, down talked ect. anyone through the course of this exchange?

Goodness....
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:55:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:54:29 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:43:25 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:38:56 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:13:22 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

What if the owner of a bakery is in the KKK and says I'm sorry but my beliefs say I shouldn't serve black people. How is that any different than someone refusing to serve gay people?

Irrelevant. We are not talking about black people. We are talking about LGBTs. And while I am no expert on every religion, religious rights and freedoms being the basis of this entire argument, I have never heard of a religion that veiws blacks as sacrilege. Thus your KKK loser has no basis nor rights to support this example since religious freedom does not apply and the KKK is not a religion.

Instead of answering my question you have merely pushed it aside and asked another, irrelevant, question. As I stated above and will further digress here I care little one way or the other the out come of this issue. I merely desire that the rights of ALL peoples are respected. Not just the ones who happen to be the popular favorite of the current majority at the time. If someone could please explain these issues I had above I would be most grateful.

The degree to which you resort to semantics and irrelevant distinctions boggles my mind. Seriously. It does.

I view this as an ad hominem. Please refrain from such mannerisms in the future.

Many Islamists would discriminate against Jews if we didn't prevent them from doing so.

And...???

Does that example satisfy you? Or is Islam not a religion either?

My goodness... My assumptions on who I am and what I believe? And i view this as somewhat of an ad hominem. "Is Islam not a religion". Pfft. Your ignorant attempts to attack my character amuse me. But you have still failed to answer any of my questions. Why, may I ask, with the hostility? Have I insulted, discriminated, down talked ect. anyone through the course of this exchange?

Goodness....

I'm sorry, "more assumptions" not "my"
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:56:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:47:21 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:34:16 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:30:51 PM, drhead wrote:
If you are able to deny someone service because they are homosexual, I should be able to deny you service for being a Christian. Quid pro quo. If you expect protection from discrimination, you are expected to not discriminate.

Indeed, the Bible teaches that one should treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. As far as I can find there's no footnote saying 'unless they're gay'.

Men are not perfected. And everyone enterperates the bible or their version of it differently. This argument is irrelevant.

Did you even read the Bible? I mean what the heck?

"Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets" -Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 7:12)

Find me one translation that denies that essential meaning. You are being absolutely insane.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:59:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:56:03 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:47:21 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:34:16 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:30:51 PM, drhead wrote:
If you are able to deny someone service because they are homosexual, I should be able to deny you service for being a Christian. Quid pro quo. If you expect protection from discrimination, you are expected to not discriminate.

Indeed, the Bible teaches that one should treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. As far as I can find there's no footnote saying 'unless they're gay'.

Men are not perfected. And everyone enterperates the bible or their version of it differently. This argument is irrelevant.

Did you even read the Bible? I mean what the heck?

"Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets" -Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 7:12)

Find me one translation that denies that essential meaning. You are being absolutely insane.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 9:01:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:54:29 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:43:25 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:38:56 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:13:22 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:38:49 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
First let me state that I am all about gay rights. That being said, I am not all about enforcing or exemplifying their rights whilst crushing the rights of others. You even stated that religious freedom is an important right bit should not allow you to trump the rights of others. But by saying this you are now trumping the rights of the religious. Are you saying that one group is better/more special then the other? Are you saying that one group deserves more rights then another? Or that both groups can have rights but if the rights if group A interfere with the rights of Group B then groups A's rights are thrown out the window because you either prefer group B as your favorite, don't like the values of group A, or are simply stating that some people deserve more rights then others? How can you try and champion civil liberty if you only advocate for YOUR personal side?

And does this law really destroy anyone's rights? Let's look. By your words you would have it to where a person or persons who own a business, let's use the cake example everyone loves, be forced to serve someone of the LGBT community even if this life style goes against the religious freedom of the business owner. If we fallow your idea then the LGBT gets their cake, their way, and all their civil rights. But what about the business owner? You have, by law, forced this man to serve someone against their will and violated their religious rights and have directly set a precedent that one groups rights out ways those of another. What purpose is freedom and liberty then if we can have those above us decide such a thing? And who and and how shall this decision be made ? Will it just be a matter of what political party happens to be the majority at the time? If so who's to say that in time when your opposites become so that they won't simply reverse the status quo and put your team on the defensive? But let's go back to our examples.

If now you have a state that allows business owners to choose for the sieve who they serve what will be the consequence? LGBT goes to bakery to buy a cake. Owner says no based off of religious values. LGBT says "very well sir, I'll take my money to the baker down the street". LGBT gets his cake, cake owner gets his religious freedom and loses a costumer who would have purchased his product and now had lost income? Now did anyone's civil rights get smashed here? The owner got to exercise his civil liberty. The LGBT gets their cake. To me I see no problem here.

Just throwing this out there it seems like a flawed idea you have and I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.

P.S. Also, please note that this law isn't talking about going back to the days were blacks were able to legally be abused or tormented or harmed or segregated. I feel that the vision of this is a big reason why the left so appose this oppose this law.

What if the owner of a bakery is in the KKK and says I'm sorry but my beliefs say I shouldn't serve black people. How is that any different than someone refusing to serve gay people?

Irrelevant. We are not talking about black people. We are talking about LGBTs. And while I am no expert on every religion, religious rights and freedoms being the basis of this entire argument, I have never heard of a religion that veiws blacks as sacrilege. Thus your KKK loser has no basis nor rights to support this example since religious freedom does not apply and the KKK is not a religion.

Instead of answering my question you have merely pushed it aside and asked another, irrelevant, question. As I stated above and will further digress here I care little one way or the other the out come of this issue. I merely desire that the rights of ALL peoples are respected. Not just the ones who happen to be the popular favorite of the current majority at the time. If someone could please explain these issues I had above I would be most grateful.

The degree to which you resort to semantics and irrelevant distinctions boggles my mind. Seriously. It does.

I view this as an ad hominem. Please refrain from such mannerisms in the future.

I am very horrified if you consider THAT ad hominem.


Many Islamists would discriminate against Jews if we didn't prevent them from doing so.

And...???

Your religious freedom argument gives them the right to deny their services to Jews. You shoved away the KKK example by saying "lul it isn't a religion", so I brought up a RELIGION, which, by your argument, has the right to deny everything to Jews just because they are Jewish.


Does that example satisfy you? Or is Islam not a religion either?

My goodness... My assumptions on who I am and what I believe? And i view this as somewhat of an ad hominem. "Is Islam not a religion". Pfft. Your ignorant attempts to attack my character amuse me. But you have still failed to answer any of my questions. Why, may I ask, with the hostility? Have I insulted, discriminated, down talked ect. anyone through the course of this exchange?

You aren't making any sense. What assumptions on who you are and what you believe? I'm not even remotely talking about you, you must be reading what I am saying wrong.

When did I attack your character? I'm glad my imaginary attacks "amuse" you, but get off your high horse, if you please.

I don't really care what your questions are, it's not my goal in life to answer your questions. I am explaining why your dismissal of the KKK example on the basis of their not being a religion is pointless for the debate, since there are religions that discriminate in the same way the KKK does. This is why I brought up Islam, but apparently you don't get that.


Goodness....
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 9:03:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:59:48 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:56:03 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:47:21 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:34:16 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:30:51 PM, drhead wrote:
If you are able to deny someone service because they are homosexual, I should be able to deny you service for being a Christian. Quid pro quo. If you expect protection from discrimination, you are expected to not discriminate.

Indeed, the Bible teaches that one should treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. As far as I can find there's no footnote saying 'unless they're gay'.

Men are not perfected. And everyone enterperates the bible or their version of it differently. This argument is irrelevant.

Did you even read the Bible? I mean what the heck?

"Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets" -Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 7:12)

Find me one translation that denies that essential meaning. You are being absolutely insane.

Right. So please tell me how you interpret that passage? Either you translate it differently, which is why I request you find a SINGLE translation online that denies that essential meaning, or please present your supposed "alternative" "interpetation" of the passage. There's no interpetation, it speaks for itself. The "teaching of the prophets" is to "do to others what you want them to do to you".

Your denying this point is just willful ignorance.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:12:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:20:10 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Race and sexual orientation are not comparable. Race is a physical attribute, so racial discrimination is considered irrational because physical appearance is irrelevant to one's behavior. However, sexual orientation by definition has everything to do with one's behavior, and the owner of the bakery has every right to decide what acts/behaviors he associates his business with.

Actually research is suggesting that sexual preference may be due to epigenetic markers in one's DNA. Meaning that people can't actually help the way they are. Nevertheless: descrimination is descrimination is discrimination. You don't get to cherry pick what is or what isn't discrimination.

What if people suddenly rallied against Christians? Refusing them services hither and thither. I think you'd soon change your tune.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:22:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any and every privately owned business should have the right to do service or refuse service to anyone. However, the only difference being that the government should cut benefits to those companies. If the government is offering tax cuts or subsidies, it should be able to refuse those to companies that don't follow preset rules. But the companies should be able to make that choice if they wish.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:34:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:12:11 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:20:10 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Race and sexual orientation are not comparable. Race is a physical attribute, so racial discrimination is considered irrational because physical appearance is irrelevant to one's behavior. However, sexual orientation by definition has everything to do with one's behavior, and the owner of the bakery has every right to decide what acts/behaviors he associates his business with.

Actually research is suggesting that sexual preference may be due to epigenetic markers in one's DNA. Meaning that people can't actually help the way they are. Nevertheless: descrimination is descrimination is discrimination. You don't get to cherry pick what is or what isn't discrimination.

What if people suddenly rallied against Christians? Refusing them services hither and thither. I think you'd soon change your tune.

I can be refused attendance to an all Black college because of my skin color (or at least, greatly hampered by it). I can be refused attendance to an all Woman's college because of squirrel lures. And you know what, it is okay. I'm okay with that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:41:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:38:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Let me help you figure this out...

If you have the right to demand that I bake you a cake, then I have the right to force you to attend church, mosque, or synagogue.

Instead of reducing it to an abstracted situation, lets look at the real picture.

We're not talking about baking cakes. Most public services are provided by the private sector. Services that people need. Discrimination is a real issue. Like a living, breathing creature that can and will hurt people economically if we allow it to. People are racists and homophobes. Minorities live in the reality of a world where they are denied the same privileges as everyone else. This puts them at a disadvantage in the world that doesn't speak to our sense of human dignity that we are recently developing. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity. That's the new deal.

No one is putting a gun to your head and making you bake cakes. Get real. It just means that the cakes you're already baking anyway can't be denied to someone based on your arbitrary hatred of someone you've never met who happens to have a certain physical or sexual characteristic you don't like. And yeah...I'm fine with that. That makes sense for living in a just society.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:47:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:41:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Let me help you figure this out...

If you have the right to demand that I bake you a cake, then I have the right to force you to attend church, mosque, or synagogue.

Instead of reducing it to an abstracted situation, lets look at the real picture.

We're not talking about baking cakes. Most public services are provided by the private sector. Services that people need. Discrimination is a real issue. Like a living, breathing creature that can and will hurt people economically if we allow it to. People are racists and homophobes. Minorities live in the reality of a world where they are denied the same privileges as everyone else. This puts them at a disadvantage in the world that doesn't speak to our sense of human dignity that we are recently developing. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity. That's the new deal.

No one is putting a gun to your head and making you bake cakes. Get real. It just means that the cakes you're already baking anyway can't be denied to someone based on your arbitrary hatred of someone you've never met who happens to have a certain physical or sexual characteristic you don't like. And yeah...I'm fine with that. That makes sense for living in a just society.

Not everyone bakes cakes and sell later. Many of them only bake after an order has been placed and accepted.

http://www.foxnews.com...

And though no "gun" was placed against their head, a fine over $100,000 is being placed against their pocket books, essentially destroying a family business because a single couple did accept that they'd have to get a cake from somewhere else.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:54:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:47:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/8/2014 10:41:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Let me help you figure this out...

If you have the right to demand that I bake you a cake, then I have the right to force you to attend church, mosque, or synagogue.

Instead of reducing it to an abstracted situation, lets look at the real picture.

We're not talking about baking cakes. Most public services are provided by the private sector. Services that people need. Discrimination is a real issue. Like a living, breathing creature that can and will hurt people economically if we allow it to. People are racists and homophobes. Minorities live in the reality of a world where they are denied the same privileges as everyone else. This puts them at a disadvantage in the world that doesn't speak to our sense of human dignity that we are recently developing. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity. That's the new deal.

No one is putting a gun to your head and making you bake cakes. Get real. It just means that the cakes you're already baking anyway can't be denied to someone based on your arbitrary hatred of someone you've never met who happens to have a certain physical or sexual characteristic you don't like. And yeah...I'm fine with that. That makes sense for living in a just society.

Not everyone bakes cakes and sell later. Many of them only bake after an order has been placed and accepted.

http://www.foxnews.com...

And though no "gun" was placed against their head, a fine over $100,000 is being placed against their pocket books, essentially destroying a family business because a single couple did accept that they'd have to get a cake from somewhere else.

Lol, I love how the story you pulled up is actually a bakery. Good job.

I'm leaning towards saying "sounds good to me". The fine is too much but I think having a fine makes sense. It's just a disincentive. Law is best established through incentive rather than force.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:13:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:54:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2014 10:47:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/8/2014 10:41:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Let me help you figure this out...

If you have the right to demand that I bake you a cake, then I have the right to force you to attend church, mosque, or synagogue.

Instead of reducing it to an abstracted situation, lets look at the real picture.

We're not talking about baking cakes. Most public services are provided by the private sector. Services that people need. Discrimination is a real issue. Like a living, breathing creature that can and will hurt people economically if we allow it to. People are racists and homophobes. Minorities live in the reality of a world where they are denied the same privileges as everyone else. This puts them at a disadvantage in the world that doesn't speak to our sense of human dignity that we are recently developing. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity. That's the new deal.

No one is putting a gun to your head and making you bake cakes. Get real. It just means that the cakes you're already baking anyway can't be denied to someone based on your arbitrary hatred of someone you've never met who happens to have a certain physical or sexual characteristic you don't like. And yeah...I'm fine with that. That makes sense for living in a just society.

Not everyone bakes cakes and sell later. Many of them only bake after an order has been placed and accepted.

http://www.foxnews.com...

And though no "gun" was placed against their head, a fine over $100,000 is being placed against their pocket books, essentially destroying a family business because a single couple did accept that they'd have to get a cake from somewhere else.

Lol, I love how the story you pulled up is actually a bakery. Good job.

I'm leaning towards saying "sounds good to me". The fine is too much but I think having a fine makes sense. It's just a disincentive. Law is best established through incentive rather than force.

Please watch Futurama, season 9, episode 7 (on Netflix), "Six Million Dollar Mon" and jump to 16:45 (I can't find a video clip of it).

While I would agree that the government can and should not provide services to those that are not engaging properly* in society should not receive some or all of those services (as listed in a previous post, any tax breaks, or subsidies, but it doesn't have to be limited to that), imposing a fine is imposing a harm. That is different.

*"properly" is very subjective and would have to be determined by the society itself, ideally through democracy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:51:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:54:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2014 10:47:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/8/2014 10:41:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:31 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Let me help you figure this out...

If you have the right to demand that I bake you a cake, then I have the right to force you to attend church, mosque, or synagogue.

Instead of reducing it to an abstracted situation, lets look at the real picture.

We're not talking about baking cakes. Most public services are provided by the private sector. Services that people need. Discrimination is a real issue. Like a living, breathing creature that can and will hurt people economically if we allow it to. People are racists and homophobes. Minorities live in the reality of a world where they are denied the same privileges as everyone else. This puts them at a disadvantage in the world that doesn't speak to our sense of human dignity that we are recently developing. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity. That's the new deal.

No one is putting a gun to your head and making you bake cakes. Get real. It just means that the cakes you're already baking anyway can't be denied to someone based on your arbitrary hatred of someone you've never met who happens to have a certain physical or sexual characteristic you don't like. And yeah...I'm fine with that. That makes sense for living in a just society.

Not everyone bakes cakes and sell later. Many of them only bake after an order has been placed and accepted.

http://www.foxnews.com...

And though no "gun" was placed against their head, a fine over $100,000 is being placed against their pocket books, essentially destroying a family business because a single couple did accept that they'd have to get a cake from somewhere else.

Lol, I love how the story you pulled up is actually a bakery. Good job.

I'm leaning towards saying "sounds good to me". The fine is too much but I think having a fine makes sense. It's just a disincentive. Law is best established through incentive rather than force.

Absolutely ridiculous. You are arguing that private individuals cannot legally discriminate while the federal government legally can. This is the exact opposite of the Constitutional position. Makes me wonder just what the liberal Left believes the Right of Free Association really means.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 12:27:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:12:11 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:20:10 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Race and sexual orientation are not comparable. Race is a physical attribute, so racial discrimination is considered irrational because physical appearance is irrelevant to one's behavior. However, sexual orientation by definition has everything to do with one's behavior, and the owner of the bakery has every right to decide what acts/behaviors he associates his business with.

Actually research is suggesting that sexual preference may be due to epigenetic markers in one's DNA. Meaning that people can't actually help the way they are. Nevertheless: descrimination is descrimination is discrimination. You don't get to cherry pick what is or what isn't discrimination.


Like a person's predisposition to alcoholism, sexual preference is likely a mixture of both genetics and environmental factors. Regardless of their DNA, it is ultimately their actions which they are recognized for, whether it be alcohol abuse or homosexuality. So that doesn't advance your case one bit.

I reject the notion that all discrimination ought to be condemned. There are laws that forbid pedophilia, so they necessarily discriminate against people who are want to molest children. In addition, everyone discriminates/exercises their right to free association, the only question is where one happens to draw the line.

What if people suddenly rallied against Christians? Refusing them services hither and thither. I think you'd soon change your tune.

If the business of Christians is of no interest to one in a free society, free association means that one has the right to decline it. However, this discrimination can be financial suicide, or it can be absolutely necessary if you want to stay in business.