PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on June 04, 2018, 07:20:20 AM
-
More as I learn - hot off the press. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf) Decision was 7-2
From Amy Howe's live feed at http://www.scotusblog.org:
The court rules that the commission's actions violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Court begins by noting that the case presents "difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services."
"The second," Kennedy writes, "is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment."
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."
The Court writes that "the delicate question of when the free exercise" of the baker's religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach."
-
I didn't see this coming. I had it all wrong. Also, I think it's a mistake for the courts to deem that services under the banner of retail commerce can be denied based on 'conscientiously held religious beliefs'. It's Pandora's box writ large. Now, anything and everything is subject to ones religious judgment. Jewish deli doesn't like a muslims requirement for halal meat. Tells the muslim to GFY. Protected. Atheist doctor doesn't want to operate on a christian patient because he's atheist. Protected. Muslim cab won't stop for single women, jews, christians, well - anyone and decides that it's because he's offended. Protected.
Can of fucking worms.
-
Here is the fixed analysis link - http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
Blurb -
This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow: Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The court seemed to leave open the possibility that a different outcome could result in a future case, and it did not rule at all one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.
-
Whatever happened to "the reasonable man?" The law has to allow for gray areas. Ever since this whole gay marriage fracas began, unlimited scenarios have been posited that make trying to lock in a template ridiculous, as invflatspin points out.
What happened back in the day? Vendor and customer worked it out politely somehow. Most probably still are today! Jeez.
I propose returning to reason. Have a list of alternate providers ready to hand to customers you can't in good conscience serve. Heck, even stockbrokers provide lists of companies whose ethics match yours. Just go there, and sleep at night.
-
I didn't see this coming. I had it all wrong. Also, I think it's a mistake for the courts to deem that services under the banner of retail commerce can be denied based on 'conscientiously held religious beliefs'. It's Pandora's box writ large. Now, anything and everything is subject to ones religious judgment. Jewish deli doesn't like a muslims requirement for halal meat. Tells the muslim to GFY. Protected. Atheist doctor doesn't want to operate on a christian patient because he's atheist. Protected. Muslim cab won't stop for single women, jews, christians, well - anyone and decides that it's because he's offended. Protected.
Can of fucking worms.
The ruling allows none of those circumstances because none of those services involve expression of ideas. It was a rather narrow decision.
-
I gar-on=damn-tee that every religious faction will not see what you see. They will see the power to deny services to anyone they don't like for their 'religious' rights. Accurate or not, this is how it will devolve.
-
What happened back in the day? Vendor and customer worked it out politely somehow. Most probably still are today! Jeez.
The folks running the Woolworth's lunch counters may beg to differ.
But anyway, the "reasonable man" approach has to work both ways. You've described it from the side of the devout business owner. But it needs to go the other way, too. Otherwise we'll have folks creating religions based on aliens visiting the earth, and God knows what they'll claim as conscientious religions objections!
-
The folks running the Woolworth's lunch counters may beg to differ.
Skin color is not religion. Try again.
-
Skin color is not religion. Try again.
Strange retort. Am I supposed to say sexual orientation is not religion?
My point is that vendor and customer haven't always worked it out politely. With our own history so instructive, it's tough to accept the let-'em-sort-it-out approach.
-
But anyway, the "reasonable man" approach has to work both ways. You've described it from the side of the devout business owner. But it needs to go the other way, too. Otherwise we'll have folks creating religions based on aliens visiting the earth, and God knows what they'll claim as conscientious religions objections!
Are you going to be the one who decides which religious objections are made up and which are real? The bigger implied question is should anyone be deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate. If the government gets into the business of validating religion, isn't that squarely in the realm of Establishment?
A year or two ago in NC there was a case of a high school student who was suspended from school for having piercings and not removing them. It turns out she is a member of the Church of Body Modification, which holds sacred beliefs behind body piercings. The school was reprimanded for failing to recognize her belief.
I believe that is part of what the Court was doing here. They recognized that what was done to Phillips was wrong, BUT they didn't want to come down on the side of saying that religion trumps sexual orientation. So they made a very narrow ruling and kicked the can down the road more.
-
I gar-on=damn-tee that every religious faction will not see what you see. They will see the power to deny services to anyone they don't like for their 'religious' rights. Accurate or not, this is how it will devolve.
One religious faction that will not see that is the religious faction opposed to Christianity. They got pretty well slapped down for the open hostility toward religion that was displayed.
I think the justices left the right amount of room in this. Ultimately you cannot disparage one protected group in order to provide rights to another protected group. I believe that is the major flaw in the CRA and subsequent follow on laws. What do you do when the practices to two protected groups clash? IMO, you go back to the Constitution and provide that religion enjoys a higher level of protection, but that's just my opinion. What do you do if it's two groups who have equal claim at protection? Which side do you force to end their beliefs and submit to the will of the state?
-
I gar-on=damn-tee that every religious faction will not see what you see. They will see the power to deny services to anyone they don't like for their 'religious' rights. Accurate or not, this is how it will devolve.
That's not at all what the Court ruled on today. They deliberately left that issue alone and ruled only on the fact that in this particular case, Colorado treated Mr. Phillips unfairly.
-
The folks running the Woolworth's lunch counters may beg to differ.
My point is that vendor and customer haven't always worked it out politely. With our own history so instructive, it's tough to accept the let-'em-sort-it-out approach.
-
Here is the fixed analysis link - http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
Blurb -
This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow: Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The court seemed to leave open the possibility that a different outcome could result in a future case, and it did not rule at all one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.
Re-reading this - it reminds me how I've always said that ADF was pushing the wrong argument. They kept hitting on a "compelled speech" argument and they kept losing on it - not just this case, but many before it. I don't know what their fetish with compelled speech is, but I feel like this decision should send them a pretty strong message that they were wrong.
What I also find scary about this decision is that they essentially said "you were mean to him(Phillips) so he wins". But what if the original ALJ had hid his anti-Christian bigotry and just ruled in favor of homosexuality over religion? Still clear 1A violation, but not such a clear decision for the Court to make.
-
That's not at all what the Court ruled on today. They deliberately left that issue alone and ruled only on the fact that in this particular case, Colorado treated Mr. Phillips unfairly.
Yes they did, you are correct. However, this nuanced ruling will not be understood by anyone advancing their religious rights. For someone who feels their rights have been stepped on, the limitations in this ruling won't be heard.
-
Re-reading this - it reminds me how I've always said that ADF was pushing the wrong argument. They kept hitting on a "compelled speech" argument and they kept losing on it - not just this case, but many before it. I don't know what their fetish with compelled speech is, but I feel like this decision should send them a pretty strong message that they were wrong.
What I also find scary about this decision is that they essentially said "you were mean to him(Phillips) so he wins". But what if the original ALJ had hid his anti-Christian bigotry and just ruled in favor of homosexuality over religion? Still clear 1A violation, but not such a clear decision for the Court to make.
That's not quite what they said. Kennedy noted in his opinion that his religiously held beliefs are no less important and no less equal under the First Amendment than the right of same-sex couples to marry. From his opinion:
To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere. . . . This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.
-
Here's David French's piece from National Review:
Today, the Supreme Court said, “enough.” Today, the Court breathed a bit of life back into religious-liberty jurisprudence. And the justice who did it is none other than Anthony Kennedy, the architect of the Obergefell opinion and the justice most responsible for the gay-rights revolution.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/masterpiece-cakeshop-ruling-religious-liberty-victory/
-
Are you going to be the one who decides which religious objections are made up and which are real? The bigger implied question is should anyone be deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate. If the government gets into the business of validating religion, isn't that squarely in the realm of Establishment?
Well that there is the rub. I certainly don't want to be the decider on whether a specific religious objection or belief is real or not. Whatever "real" would mean in that context.
But what I do think we can do, as a people in a functioning society, is set guidelines by which all must abide. Period. We would not allow people to act in contravention of these guidelines, no matter whether they claim a religious objection or not. Yes, this necessarily means putting indirect limits on what we allow a person to claim religious exemption for. But I think this is the proper way to approach it, because the alternatives are not workable, in my opinion.
-
The key for me on this is that the baker was 'holding out' if you will. His contract was to decorate a cake, the way the paying customer wanted it. Lets change it from a cake, to a commissioned piece of art by anyone else. If an artist is an artist, and is charging for his art, then create what the customer says. If he wants to make art for art sake, and have the ability to deny something he doesn't want to paint, then don't hold out as an commissioned artist. Or, alternately make the art you want(un-commissioned), and put it on the open market for sale. You get to control your own destiny, but the risks in maintaining control over what you will and will not paint(decorate), are borne by you, and not by the customer.
Frex; A muslim cab denying a ride because of his sincerely held belief that giving a ride to a single woman alone at night would besmirch his reputation. How are they going to split this hair? Tell him 'too bad you don't like this affront to your religion. You have to give her a ride.' Now, we've just come down on the side of establishment. Hmmmmm
-
Judge Nap sees the same concerns as I do.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/04/judge-nap-scotus-ruling-baker-refusing-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-dangerous-opinion?page=1
-
Well that there is the rub. I certainly don't want to be the decider on whether a specific religious objection or belief is real or not. Whatever "real" would mean in that context.
But what I do think we can do, as a people in a functioning society, is set guidelines by which all must abide. Period. We would not allow people to act in contravention of these guidelines, no matter whether they claim a religious objection or not. Yes, this necessarily means putting indirect limits on what we allow a person to claim religious exemption for. But I think this is the proper way to approach it, because the alternatives are not workable, in my opinion.
Oh right, just slap a template down and say "Period!" And for your info, skin color is not a behavior. Bakers, florists, etc. have been saying they do not want to celebrate a certain behavior. And dude, if you don't think that's what it is, CHANGE MY MIND.
But to stick to topic, what you are suggesting jettisons gays into the glowing, protected legal sunshine and shoves Christians and others who don't want to participate in or serve the behavior into a closet of darkness and lies. "Sorry, I'm already booked that day." "Sorry, I'll be out of town that day."
No.
-
Usually when we have rights in conflict, I site the founding documents. Religious freedom is a protected class in the first amendment. Gays are protected by the 14th I guess. I still don't like treating people different based on their lifestyle. This goes whether they are religious or gay.
-
I still don't like treating people different based on their lifestyle.
So the convicted pedophile down the street is just as eligible as a baby sitter for your kids as the teenage girl next door? Or did you mean "based on their lifestyle that I approve of"?
Sorry, but you DO treat people differently based on their lifestyle. You don't put the same trust in gang banger as you do in a football star. You don't want to sit next the smelly bum on the bus, but you'll sit next to the young sweaty aerobics instructor.
I'm not buying it.
-
I'll sell the pedophile, or the gang banger a cake with anything he wants written on it. Just the same as I would the young sweaty aerobics instructor, or the baby sitter. Now, if you want to talk about my personal choices in companions, with no commerce involved, I'm the most racist, misogynistic, bigot, xenophobe on the planet. No defense, I'll admit the hell out of that.
-
But what I do think we can do, as a people in a functioning society, is set guidelines by which all must abide. Period. We would not allow people to act in contravention of these guidelines, no matter whether they claim a religious objection or not. Yes, this necessarily means putting indirect limits on what we allow a person to claim religious exemption for. But I think this is the proper way to approach it, because the alternatives are not workable, in my opinion.
What you really mean by this is that we set guidelines you agree with. Because we have had guidelines in the past, things like homosexuality is a perversion and a mental disease and marriage being between one man and one woman. I will hazard a guess that you do not agree with those
guidelines.
How about if we have a guideline that says nobody will tell someone else what to think, even if it means they get offended? How about if we have guidelines that state that everyone is free to act on their own conscience and nobody will ever be forced to serve another?
Or if you are in favor of compelling service, how will you limit that to avoid slavery? I see no difference between compelling an unwanted business transaction and slavery. I define slavery as compelled service with inadequate compensation given the repulsive nature of the service. That seems to fit what Colorado forced on Phillips, complete with the whipping for non compliance.
-
How about if we have a guideline that says nobody will tell someone else what to think, even if it means they get offended? How about if we have guidelines that state that everyone is free to act on their own conscience and nobody will ever be forced to serve another?
Or if you are in favor of compelling service, how will you limit that to avoid slavery? I see no difference between compelling an unwanted business transaction and slavery. I define slavery as compelled service with inadequate compensation given the repulsive nature of the service. That seems to fit what Colorado forced on Phillips, complete with the whipping for non compliance.
Exactly. Avoiding offense is the road to destruction. Political correctness kills. Human flourishing requires conflict and its resolution. Removal of conflict, a life force, results in death. It will be interesting to see what happens to Starbucks now that they have removed the critical and appropriate boundaries between paying customers and literally everyone else. And so on down the road of no offending.
-
What you really mean by this is that we set guidelines you agree with.
You're doing that forum psychologist thing again. I'm capable of telling you what I mean. If you need clarification, you can ask.
Anyway. My point to both you and to Becky is that we already accept guidelines for which there can be no objection or exception based on religion. And I'm not talking about the instant case being discussed here. So I hear you suggesting we let everyone be free to act on their own conscience. A fine goal, but just a goal. I don't hear you doing the dirty work of figuring out the logistics. And we'd have to answer some real tough questions. Here are a couple:
- Is there a limit to what we'll accept on religious exemption grounds? If so, how do we decide where those limits are? And if not, how do we deal with the extremes of allowing religious beliefs to be an exception to anything/everything?
- How would we prevent pockets of the country from regressing into racial (or other) discrimination?
-
- Is there a limit to what we'll accept on religious exemption grounds? If so, how do we decide where those limits are? And if not, how do we deal with the extremes of allowing religious beliefs to be an exception to anything/everything?
- How would we prevent pockets of the country from regressing into racial (or other) discrimination?
Limits can be set in individual cases using reason and keeping an eye toward the freedoms of each individual. As for pockets of the country regressing into racial and discriminatory hell, simply promote voting Republican. It's the Democrats who are peddling hate and division. Gay couples are moving to the small towns in red counties because people are more accepting there. Look it up. Become conservative. It's the right way to live.
-
You're doing that forum psychologist thing again. I'm capable of telling you what I mean. If you need clarification, you can ask.
Anyway. My point to both you and to Becky is that we already accept guidelines for which there can be no objection or exception based on religion. And I'm not talking about the instant case being discussed here. So I hear you suggesting we let everyone be free to act on their own conscience. A fine goal, but just a goal. I don't hear you doing the dirty work of figuring out the logistics. And we'd have to answer some real tough questions. Here are a couple:
The difference (one differences) between a democrat and conservative is how,willing a conservative is to let the free market sort itself out.
Democrats are anxious, almost scarily anxious to set the limits for everyone, all the time, and basemit on the ever changing rules of political correctness.
When a Muslim baker chose not to serve a gay wedding request (we have seen video of that happening), or when the homosexual staffed bakery refused to bake the cake celebrating traditional marriage, not a single democrat voiced objection, because those infringements are politically correct.
Let a Christian do the exact same thing and scum bags that work for the state of colorado go after them like they prayed outside an abortion clinic but writ much larger.
[/list]
-
The key for me on this is that the baker was 'holding out' if you will. His contract was to decorate a cake, the way the paying customer wanted it.
There was no contract. The couple came into his shop and asked him to bake something special for their wedding with a message with which he did not agree. He offered to sell them anything already made or even make them a regular wedding cake, just not something with that specific message. He has also refused to bake Halloween cakes.
Frex; A muslim cab denying a ride because of his sincerely held belief that giving a ride to a single woman alone at night would besmirch his reputation. How are they going to split this hair? Tell him 'too bad you don't like this affront to your religion. You have to give her a ride.' Now, we've just come down on the side of establishment. Hmmmmm
Silly example as he could just drive right by her and pretend like he didn't see her, or he was already en route to pick someone else up, etc. I'm not familiar with for hire transportation laws, but I'm willing to bet that there are exceptions allowed under the right circumstances as to which customers you can deny legally and which ones you can't. You can't deny them because of their race, religion, sex, etc.
-
You're doing that forum psychologist thing again. I'm capable of telling you what I mean. If you need clarification, you can ask.
Anyway. My point to both you and to Becky is that we already accept guidelines for which there can be no objection or exception based on religion. And I'm not talking about the instant case being discussed here. So I hear you suggesting we let everyone be free to act on their own conscience. A fine goal, but just a goal. I don't hear you doing the dirty work of figuring out the logistics. And we'd have to answer some real tough questions. Here are a couple:
- Is there a limit to what we'll accept on religious exemption grounds? If so, how do we decide where those limits are? And if not, how do we deal with the extremes of allowing religious beliefs to be an exception to anything/everything?
- How would we prevent pockets of the country from regressing into racial (or other) discrimination?
So you don't want to have guidelines that you agree with? I find that rather incredible.
Is there a limit? Of course there are limits and we decide those limits based never compelling anyone to participate with you. If your religion dictates murder, that's nice but you cannot practice that because the practice of your religion requires someone else to involuntarily participate. Your religion says "marry a teenager", sorry, but the teenager is unable to consent to participate; you lose. You want a wedding cake and I don't want to make one? Sorry, but I cannot be compelled to bake the cake. You want to pray in public, that's fine, participation in prayer is voluntary. Tolerance is key here. Non-compulsion is the key to liberalism, but it requires respect, tolerance and self-control, which is why America has so much trouble with it.
What makes you think there aren't already huge parts of the country that practice rampant discrimination? It may not be racial, but discrimination is all over the place. The hidden discrimination today is against conservatives, whites, males and Christians. You think that making a law telling everyone not to practice discrimination has made it go away? Here in the South, I see it all the time going both ways. Don't believe me, put on a MAGA hat and walk down Mission St in SF. I assure you that you will not make it a mile without experiencing discrimination.
-
I gar-on=damn-tee that every religious faction will not see what you see. They will see the power to deny services to anyone they don't like for their 'religious' rights. Accurate or not, this is how it will devolve.
It’s amazing that we all generally got along until the
-
You're doing that forum psychologist thing again. I'm capable of telling you what I mean. If you need clarification, you can ask.
Anyway. My point to both you and to Becky is that we already accept guidelines for which there can be no objection or exception based on religion. And I'm not talking about the instant case being discussed here. So I hear you suggesting we let everyone be free to act on their own conscience. A fine goal, but just a goal. I don't hear you doing the dirty work of figuring out the logistics. And we'd have to answer some real tough questions. Here are a couple:
- Is there a limit to what we'll accept on religious exemption grounds? If so, how do we decide where those limits are? And if not, how do we deal with the extremes of allowing religious beliefs to be an exception to anything/everything?
- How would we prevent pockets of the country from regressing into racial (or other) discrimination?
In the past 242 years when have religious beliefs allowed or justified “anything/everything”? For most of our history, religion has peacefully coexisted in society, and has been an integral part of the fabric of American lives. Now, religions, including Catholicism, and religious beliefs are treated like impediments to society, which is shameful.
I think you are creating straw men.
And please, if we are going to have a meaningful conversation, don’t try to tell me that slavery or the Klan or racism were justified by religion (they were not), or that fringe groups like that crazy gay-hating Baptist church represents religion in any way shape or form.
-
In the past 242 years when have religious beliefs allowed or justified “anything/everything”? For most of our history, religion has peacefully coexisted in society, and has been an integral part of the fabric of American lives. Now, religions, including Catholicism, and religious beliefs are treated like impediments to society, which is shameful.
I think you are creating straw men.
And please, if we are going to have a meaningful conversation, don’t try to tell me that slavery or the Klan or racism were justified by religion (they were not), or that fringe groups like that crazy gay-hating Baptist church represents religion in any way shape or form.
Democrats hate to admit that slavery and the KKK were nurtured and protect3d by the democrats for generations and generations.
The KKK marched in as honored guests at the democratic convention in NYC in 1932, IIRC.
Democrats are all in on referencing the divisive, hateful, segregationist and descrimination practices common in 1932 in every walk of American life.
-
And 4 days later....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-gays-allowed-hardware-store-emboldened-supreme-court-cake-ruling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html
But, but, but - blahblahblahblahblah.
Huh? I KNEW it would come to this.
-
And 4 days later....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-gays-allowed-hardware-store-emboldened-supreme-court-cake-ruling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html
But, but, but - blahblahblahblahblah.
Huh? I KNEW it would come to this.
I happen to think it a good thing that idiots make themselves known.
-
I happen to think it a good thing that idiots make themselves known.
Cue Steingar...............
-
As much as politicians and other forms of low life - like progressives - hate to admit it, the free market will take care of that in no time.
-
And 4 days later....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-gays-allowed-hardware-store-emboldened-supreme-court-cake-ruling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html
But, but, but - blahblahblahblahblah.
Huh? I KNEW it would come to this.
There are going to be people on both sides of this who will push the limits and see how much they can get away with. This guy clearly didn't read the Supreme Court opinion.
-
And 4 days later....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-gays-allowed-hardware-store-emboldened-supreme-court-cake-ruling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html
But, but, but - blahblahblahblahblah.
Huh? I KNEW it would come to this.
He had the signup for years, and now an intrepid reporter asked bubba about a Supreme Court ruling.
You err in thinking this is a sign of what is to become after this ruling. Bigots will always exist, and bubba walked into a trap of his own ignorant making.
I’m confident he will be treated appropriately by the free market.
-
He had the signup for years, and now an intrepid reporter asked bubba about a Supreme Court ruling.
You err in thinking this is a sign of what is to become after this ruling. Bigots will always exist, and bubba walked into a trap of his own ignorant making.
I’m confident he will be treated appropriately by the free market.
Liberals NEVER trust the free market, because that may result in an outcome that doesn't pander to their agenda.
That whole free thing is too free for those lock step, progressive, zombies.
-
He had the signup for years, and now an intrepid reporter asked bubba about a Supreme Court ruling.
You err in thinking this is a sign of what is to become after this ruling. Bigots will always exist, and bubba walked into a trap of his own ignorant making.
I’m confident he will be treated appropriately by the free market.
"The business owner told WBIR that he was celebrating a “win” following the recent court ruling and hung the sign again. He has no plans to take it down."
-
"The business owner told WBIR that he was celebrating a “win” following the recent court ruling and hung the sign again. He has no plans to take it down."
I stand by my statement.
-
I stand by my statement.
Here's a weird thought. Number of gays who spend a lot of time and money in hardware stores, vs number of christians plus those who don't care(like me) who spend a lot of time and money in hardware stores.
If it hasn't been mentioned, I think he's wrong, and I think he's mistaken in his methods, and I think the SCOTUS got it wrong as well. However, the SCOTUS is much more nuanced about the way they did it wrong. I doubt this store is in fear of going out of business.
-
America today, thanks to the hard left.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jack-dorsey-twitters-ceo-blasted-for-patronizing-chick-fil-a/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jack-dorsey-twitters-ceo-blasted-for-patronizing-chick-fil-a/)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey found himself back pedaling after tweeting about using Chick-fil-A's mobile app, saying he'd forgotten about the fast-food chain's history of opposing gay marriage.
Dorsey found himself the subject of a tweetstorm after he posted a screenshot (https://twitter.com/jack/status/1005611653176496128) showing how he'd saved 10 percent using Chick-fil-A's app at one of the fast-food chain's outlets in Los Angeles.
-
Here's a weird thought. Number of gays who spend a lot of time and money in hardware stores, vs number of christians plus those who don't care(like me) who spend a lot of time and money in hardware stores.
If it hasn't been mentioned, I think he's wrong, and I think he's mistaken in his methods, and I think the SCOTUS got it wrong as well. However, the SCOTUS is much more nuanced about the way they did it wrong. I doubt this store is in fear of going out of business.
IMO its a weird thought because it has a false premise. This store owner’s sign has zero relationship to any belief in Christianity, notwithstanding the fact that idiots do, on occasion, co-opt religion for their own sinful purposes. See Westboro Baptist “Church.”
I think he’s wrong too. Where we differ is that you seem to think that it’s a sign of things to come. I see it as a sign of an ignorant human having his 15 minutes of fame. Surely he’ll get backslapped by his rednecked buddies, and probably will die from drinking tainted moonshine. End of story.
-
Here's a weird thought. Number of gays who spend a lot of time and money in hardware stores, vs number of christians plus those who don't care(like me) who spend a lot of time and money in hardware stores.
If it hasn't been mentioned, I think he's wrong, and I think he's mistaken in his methods, and I think the SCOTUS got it wrong as well. However, the SCOTUS is much more nuanced about the way they did it wrong. I doubt this store is in fear of going out of business.
IMO its a weird thought because it has a false premise. This store owner’s sign has zero relationship to any belief in Christianity, notwithstanding the fact that idiots do, on occasion, co-opt religion for their own sinful purposes. See Westboro Baptist “Church.”
I think he’s wrong too. Where we differ is that you seem to think that it’s a sign of things to come. I see it as a sign of an ignorant human having his 15 minutes of fame. Surely he’ll get backslapped by his rednecked buddies, and probably will die from drinking tainted moonshine. End of story.
-
IMO its a weird thought because it has a false premise. This store owner’s sign has zero relationship to any belief in Christianity, notwithstanding the fact that idiots do, on occasion, co-opt religion for their own sinful purposes. See Westboro Baptist “Church.”
I think he’s wrong too. Where we differ is that you seem to think that it’s a sign of things to come. I see it as a sign of an ignorant human having his 15 minutes of fame. Surely he’ll get backslapped by his rednecked buddies, and probably will die from drinking tainted moonshine. End of story.
uhhhhhhhh...
http://amyxhardware.com/
Now, being someone who is not of the faith, I'm not prepared to throw down with anyone over what is or isn't related to an organized belief system. By all outward appearance, and along with the Westboro Baptists, they have seem to have the right to call themselves christians. Which is the great thing about the whole culture of faith, and spirits, and all kinds of hoodoo-voodoo stuff. No one can stop them. I've admitted that I am not the judge or arbiter of what is, or is not correct faith-following. I will submit that neither are you their judge. (sorry)
-
uhhhhhhhh...
http://amyxhardware.com/
Now, being someone who is not of the faith, I'm not prepared to throw down with anyone over what is or isn't related to an organized belief system. By all outward appearance, and along with the Westboro Baptists, they have seem to have the right to call themselves christians. Which is the great thing about the whole culture of faith, and spirits, and all kinds of hoodoo-voodoo stuff. No one can stop them. I've admitted that I am not the judge or arbiter of what is, or is not correct faith-following. I will submit that neither are you their judge. (sorry)
There is only one Judge in the end, but I can have an opinion, and yes, judge them for making an abomination of the faith to which I belong. I went to 12 years of Catholic grade and high school, 4 years in a Lutheran college, and being a liberal arts school, I studied world religions along with my accounting major. I have a pretty good handle on what does and doesn’t constitute Christianity.
“Gays not allowed” has no foundation in Christianity in any way, shape, or form. And it’s up to the faithful to express that.
“Love your neighbor as yourself” is Christianity in 5 words.
-
I'm sure that works for you, and I gotta say - seems to be reasonable POV to me as well. However, the rest of the world sees them as 'christians'. If only you could kick them out of the club.
BTW, can you find me some scripture that reinforces their anti-gay stand? I'm not sure where the whole christians vs gays comes from. I don't want to burden you, but I know spit about religion. BTW, I went to a Lutheran college for a short time too. Nice folk, for the most part.
edit; Nevermind on that scripture. I found the 'clobber' passages. Which - to me seem rather cut and dried. Leaving little to interpretation, provided they were translated correctly.
-
“Love your neighbor as yourself” is Christianity in 5 words.
Close, you missed an entire commandment...Love thy neighbor is the second greatest commandment. But who is your neighbor? There's pretty good evidence that this isn't intended to mean everyone, everywhere. Nice sentiment, but there's clear instruction not to hold those outside God's community to His standards. That means there IS an inside and an outside and there are people inside and outside. But who is who?
Love God with all your might, all your heart and all your soul is the first. That includes keeping God's law and keeping faithful to His commands. That is how you recognize who is inside.
How does that relate to homosexuals? Like all sin, condemn the sin, embrace the repentant sinner. And keep offering to help unrepentant sinners. If you love your neighbor but fail to keep God's rules then you've missed the boat.
You don't have to believe this, but I went to Catholic school for 12 years too and then took religion classes in college. You don't have the monopoly on what is and is not Christianity. Neither do I. We simply have different beliefs, I think because I'm looking at a more comprehensive inclusion of biblical books. I believe that a Christian is one who follows the example of Christ as taught by the Apostles. That must include "Go forth and sin no more." Jesus never said "your sins are ignored, go forth and have a good time".
The rule as Americans should be respect for what others believe, even when you don't believe the same thing. I am constantly disheartened to discover that the homonazis do not practice this.
-
Well, guys - I'm agonna get my self in trouble here but this is the one that to me is clear and unambiguous.
Leviticus 18:22 (20:13)
“You shall not lie with men as with women. It is abomination.”
Pretty devoid of adjectives. Also, if I can read right, the articles are not modified. Kinda like the 2nd A.
-
Well, guys - I'm agonna get my self in trouble here but this is the one that to me is clear and unambiguous.
Leviticus 18:22 (20:13)
“You shall not lie with men as with women. It is abomination.”
Pretty devoid of adjectives. Also, if I can read right, the articles are not modified. Kinda like the 2nd A.
MY youngest son ans his family go to a church here and he is all excited about it. The pastor tends to downplay the Old Testament so he can tell everyone that all that stuff is okay. If you're going to do that, aren't you nullifying the Ten Commandments also?
-
I don't care who says what, but those nut balls at Westboro are (IMO) as far away from Christians as Farrakhan and just as poisonous, but Farrakhan gets a pass and the entire Christian world gets to wear the Westboro cross of shame.
If that isn't liberalism, nothing is.
TODAY: Louis Farrakhan Goes On Unhinged Rant Against ‘Jewish Power’ And Anal Sex
Do you know that many of us who go to Hollywood seeking a chance have to submit to anal sex and all kind of debauchery and they give you a little part? It’s called the casting couch. See that’s Jewish power. #Farrakhan pic.twitter.com/Avu8VLZgSu
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/11/louis-farrakhan-jewish-power/
The left will twist themselves into the ugliest pretzel in history to justify ignoring lunatic louis, but attack there own because he... (GASP)... ate at Chik-fil-A
Biggest assholes on earth.
-
I tend to believe that anyone who tries to argue that group A or B isn't Christian probaby needs to attend to the log in their eye.
I see this all the time with the LDS church (Mormon, no, I am not). If you learn what their faith is, they believe in following the example of Jesus, be kind to others and not to judge those outside themselves. In this regard, they are better Christians than 99% of other Christians! And yet so many will say they are not because of bigotry and bias. Sad.
-
MY youngest son ans his family go to a church here and he is all excited about it. The pastor tends to downplay the Old Testament so he can tell everyone that all that stuff is okay. If you're going to do that, aren't you nullifying the Ten Commandments also?
Well sir, I really am not the right guy to ask. While I have a working knowledge and grasp of basic christian theology, I'm pretty weak on the faith, spirits, sacraments, commandments, and all things theologic.
One thing that has always stuck me is the flexibility of religions. They are cast in stone, but the stone is turned to lava. The christians were absolutely stone sure that the Earth was the center of the universe. To point of intimidating, torturing and imprisoning adherents to heliocentrism. The church adapted. Before that, there was the convenient change of dates of the jesuit preacher to align well with Saturnalia(pre-christian era). Now, the advancement of the acceptance of homosexuality in media, politics, etc and here is religion, going along with it despite exacting words calling it 'abomination'. How is something like 'you shall not....' be mistconstrued as anything other than a theocratic prohibition? Flexibility. I guess, great thing for religions. But again - I defer to those with far more knowledge.
-
How is something like 'you shall not....' be mistconstrued as anything other than a theocratic prohibition?
How you ask? Old yeast will leaven the entire bread. Remember that this saying comes from the Jewish world where unleaven bread was special, it was unleaven bread that you wanted to produce. But some old yeast got into the dough and caused the bread to rise. Although risen bread is tasty, unrisen bread is special to Jews and to early Christians who came out of the Jewish tradition. Even today, Catholic bread used for communion is unleaven.
When sin becomes "normal" to the members of the church, it happens because they've been corrupted by the ubiquity of the sin. Spread around the lies that it's OK and pretty soon everyone believes the lies. But God's standards do not change...what was true, is true, and will always be true. What was an abomination is still an abomination and always will be, regardless of the moral standards of Sodom and Gomorrah.
This is entirely what this case should be about.
-
Close, you missed an entire commandment...Love thy neighbor is the second greatest commandment. But who is your neighbor? There's pretty good evidence that this isn't intended to mean everyone, everywhere. Nice sentiment, but there's clear instruction not to hold those outside God's community to His standards. That means there IS an inside and an outside and there are people inside and outside. But who is who?
Love God with all your might, all your heart and all your soul is the first. That includes keeping God's law and keeping faithful to His commands. That is how you recognize who is inside.
How does that relate to homosexuals? Like all sin, condemn the sin, embrace the repentant sinner. And keep offering to help unrepentant sinners. If you love your neighbor but fail to keep God's rules then you've missed the boat.
You don't have to believe this, but I went to Catholic school for 12 years too and then took religion classes in college. You don't have the monopoly on what is and is not Christianity. Neither do I. We simply have different beliefs, I think because I'm looking at a more comprehensive inclusion of biblical books. I believe that a Christian is one who follows the example of Christ as taught by the Apostles. That must include "Go forth and sin no more." Jesus never said "your sins are ignored, go forth and have a good time".
The rule as Americans should be respect for what others believe, even when you don't believe the same thing. I am constantly disheartened to discover that the homonazis do not practice this.
Lighten up, Francis.
If I wanted an entire synopsis of Christianity I would have given it.
If you think that “Gays not allowed” fits any measure of Christian dogma, you have completely missed the catechism of the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general.
-
If you think that “Gays not allowed” fits any measure of Christian dogma, you have completely missed the catechism of the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general.
If you think that anything I said means "Gays not allowed", reread it carefully. Homosexuality is not allowed and sin must be rebuked else it will corrupt God's people. That is in so many places in the Bible, but if you believe that Christianity is summed up by "be nice to people", then it's not surprising that you missed it. It is far deeper and richer than that.
If I was going give a recitation of all of Christianity, it would take a lot more than a couple of paragraphs.
I'm well aware of the Catholic catechisms. I may be one of the few people outside of priests who have actually read the entire thing.
Regardless - I'm not asking you to believe what I said, but I am pointing out that your interpretation is contradicted by other passages.
-
When sin becomes "normal" to the members of the church, it happens because they've been corrupted by the ubiquity of the sin. Spread around the lies that it's OK and pretty soon everyone believes the lies. But God's standards do not change...what was true, is true, and will always be true. What was an abomination is still an abomination and always will be, regardless of the moral standards of Sodom and Gomorrah.
This is entirely what this case should be about.
I think - I agree with you. I'm a pretty flexible guy and have no care either way on the gays from a moral perspective. I'm a bit disappointed that such a small segment of society gets a lot of media and law attention, but maybe given the past legal conundrums they've faced, some of it is deserved. But,,, my faith-following bretheren who are finding all kinds of dodges, and excuses, and liturgical sleigh of hand to ignore this clear theological prohibition have me once again questioning their moral compass. An outsiders view anyway.
-
I think - I agree with you. I'm a pretty flexible guy and have no care either way on the gays from a moral perspective. I'm a bit disappointed that such a small segment of society gets a lot of media and law attention, but maybe given the past legal conundrums they've faced, some of it is deserved. But,,, my faith-following bretheren who are finding all kinds of dodges, and excuses, and liturgical sleigh of hand to ignore this clear theological prohibition have me once again questioning their moral compass. An outsiders view anyway.
Have you and Flynn completely lost sight of the issue in this thread? Theological prohibition against being gay notwithstanding, is it Christian to say that gays are not allowed in your fucking hardware store? No, it is not.
-
I don't know about anyone else, but I've gotten past the obvious, and moved on to a more context rich discussion about the underlying principles of this guy's POV to maybe understand where he's coming from. If I haven't made it clear enough in the recent past posts, I consider his stance on restricting gays from his business wrong. I think that now, after some clarity I have figured out where he's planted his flag, or where he's drawn his own line in the ground. As much as I applaud his vigor with holding true to the faith value, and standing on his principles, rejecting people from his business over the objections of his faith is a non-starter.
Happy?
-
Have you and Flynn completely lost sight of the issue in this thread? Theological prohibition against being gay notwithstanding, is it Christian to say that gays are not allowed in your fucking hardware store? No, it is not.
That isn't the issue at all, so no _I_ at least have not lost sight of it. Neither was it the issue for Mr Phillips. But we weren't having that dicussion any more.
The real question that the Court didn't answer was - can the government require a person to act contrary to their sincere religious beliefs? The 1st Amendment makes it very, very clear that the answer is no, but people inject their person bias into the process all the time to ignore what 1A says.
-
That isn't the issue at all, so no _I_ at least have not lost sight of it. Neither was it the issue for Mr Phillips. But we weren't having that dicussion any more.
The real question that the Court didn't answer was - can the government require a person to act contrary to their sincere religious beliefs? The 1st Amendment makes it very, very clear that the answer is no, but people inject their person bias into the process all the time to ignore what 1A says.
The answer to that question is yes. It MUST be yes. And it IS yes. From the article I linked to -
But even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained, the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone.
But this is not the question you've posed before, which previously had some important caveats about compelling service to others and not interfering with the rights of others. When you propose that question, it is much more compelling.
But if we step back for a moment here, with respect to federal anti-discrimination laws, aren't they specific to places of public accommodation? Isn't that an important caveat? If my new religion demands that I never pay income taxes, then I guess I won't have a job or start a business. Similarly, if my religion demands that I have no dealings with white people, then I guess I better not start a business of public accommodation. (But I could start a discriminatory mega-church and be rich!)
I understand what you're saying as far as not compelling service. But I'm not there yet, especially against the backdrop of history. We have rules in a society that compel people to do many things. If we decide that thou shalt not compel, we lose not only those rules we place upon business, for example, but we lose juries of peers, the draft, compulsory community service, prison labor, and I'm not sure what else. Where does that take us?
-
The answer to that question is yes. It MUST be yes.
The trouble with yes is where that takes us. When human beings are denied the right to pursue their deep convictions, that is tyranny. There's nothing else to say about it. Our governments not only have no authority to suppress unpopular ideas, they have an obligation to protect them. I would say that it should be NO and in a just government, it IS no. When the Civil Rights Act conflicts with the First Amendment...why does the inferior law prevail? That is exactly backwards from how it should be.
My answer is that we have screwed up the system of law, that we no longer respect or follow law and that the Republic is in decline, heading toward anarchy. If you are under the age of 20, there's a pretty good chance that you will live to see the end of the United States and one day they will say that it was The People that did it in.
Incidentally, when the CRA was written, the term "public accommodation" was specific to hotels and restaurants. It has since been expanded into nearly every aspect of life.
-
The real question that the Court didn't answer was - can the government require a person to act contrary to their sincere religious beliefs?.
The answer to that question is yes. It MUST be yes. And it IS yes.-
The trouble with yes is where that takes us. When human beings are denied the right to pursue their deep convictions, that is tyranny. There's nothing else to say about it. Our governments not only have no authority to suppress unpopular ideas, they have an obligation to protect them. I would say that it should be NO and in a just government, it IS no.
You are both correct. The answer is and should be YES if the religious belief causes harm to, or interferes with the rights of others. Do you have a right to your religious belief that says you can't use modern medicine? Even if that causes the death of your child? A tough question. Yes you do for yourself, but maybe no in the case of your children.
If your sincere religious belief as an extremist Muslim is that you should blow up a store full of infidel, then YES the state not only should but has a duty to require you to act contrary to your religious belief.
What if your religion involves a ritual using psychedelic drugs? Are you hurting anyone else or interfering with their rights? NO. Then the government has no business interfering.
Do you have a right to a cake baked by Joe Baker's private shop? NO. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not a right to compel Joe Baker to make you happy by baking you a cake. What harm is caused? Possibly very hurt feelings, but there is no Constitutional right not to have your feelings hurt. But today we have twisted things so much that we are destroying the First Amendment on that very basis. Indeed the First Amendment protects Joe Baker's religious convictions, but NOT a gay person's, or anyone else's, feelings.
Hurt feelings are not "harm" in this context. In other contexts they might be. A crowd dressed up in white sheets burning a cross in a black person's front yard, yes, I would consider that harm, but more because it rises to the level of threat, not because it hurts the resident's feelings. There is zero threat implied in refusing to bake a cake, assuming it is done politely.
On the other hand, the hardware store owner is not required to express celebration of the act of sodomy if he sells hardware to a gay person. There is no reasonable religious conviction requiring a mainstream Christian to refuse to do trade with a sinner. On the contrary, we are supposed to engage and convert by example in a spirit of brotherhood and love, at least that's how I understand the New Testament. I'm having trouble finding a legal basis for discrimination based on religious conviction in the hardware store case, unless the "hardware" in question is for the purpose of constructing a gay sex dungeon. Of course, if you are Amish and shunning is a fundamental part of your belief structure, then perhaps a case can be made for refusing to allow a gay into your hardware store at all.
The answer generally should be NO, the government needs to stay the hell out of society and culture, but in cases of clear harm or infringement on the rights of others (the real rights as listed in the Constitution, not modern made up shit) then the answer is clearly YES. So both of you are right.
If I were a judge, that is how I would rule, and then I would boycott both the baker and the hardware store for being assholes. I'd be a judge who can separate my personal stance from applying the law.
If I owned a bakery, I would put up a sign: "Gays welcome. Concealed and open carry welcome. Free cake if you talk to each other and try to see each other's point of view."
-
Aside from hurt feelings(if that is your measure of constitutional protection) what pain, damage is the religious baker experiencing?
How are they otherwise hurt, damaged?
I say if one opens a store and provides a product, service you take all comers(so to speak), and take their money and make what they tell you. If one want to be Michaelangelo and paint/decorate for art sake, then sure - decline to decorate whatever you want. But - the minute a customer tells you to decorate for a commission, you take the commission and shut your religious mouth.
(edited for grammar)
-
Aside from hurt feelings(if that is your measure of constitutional protection) what pain, damage is the religious baker experiencing?
How are they otherwise hurt, damaged?
I say if one opens a store and provides a product, service you take all comers(so to speak), and take their money and make what they tell you. If one want to be Michaelangelo and paint/decorate for art sake, then sure - decline to decorate whatever you want. But - the minute a customer tells you to decorate for a commission, you take the commission and shut your religious mouth.
(edited for grammar)
That's not how it works.
-
Aside from hurt feelings(if that is your measure of constitutional protection) what pain, damage is the religious baker experiencing?
How are they otherwise hurt, damaged?
I say if one opens a store and provides a product, service you take all comers(so to speak), and take their money and make what they tell you. If one want to be Michaelangelo and paint/decorate for art sake, then sure - decline to decorate whatever you want. But - the minute a customer tells you to decorate for a commission, you take the commission and shut your religious mouth.
They are hurt by not being respected by the common government and by being treated as an inferior citizen by the government...the same thing that brought the Pilgrims to this country. The mental and emotional restraint that happens when you are forced to subdue your beliefs is akin to slavery.
The gay couple on the other hand just doesn't get to have their cake OR to eat it. Yes, they are treated as inferior by the baker, but the choices here are the baker being treated poorly by the government or the gay couple being treated unequally by the baker. Clearly the lesser evil is to side with the baker. Besides, there is pretty compelling evidence that the entire event was forced, that the gay couple chose Mr Phillips with the intention of being denied a cake and with the intention of forcing a gay rights lawsuit over it.
One of the arguments in this situation, is that the applicable laws place the government as arbitrator over social interactions between citizens. How can an impartial government decide which citizen has acted in a permissible way and which one has not? It cannot, it is required to make a moral judgement and in doing so, it must endorse either one belief system or the other AND it must prohibit the loser from acting. That is both an issue of Free Exercise and Establishment. Our government should be regulating us to "be nice" when we deal with others.
I think the stickiness of this issue is why the Supreme Court didn't make a general ruling in Masterpiece, but did come down strongly in favor of Mr Phillips.
-
One of the arguments in this situation, is that the applicable laws place the government as arbitrator over social interactions between citizens. How can an impartial government decide which citizen has acted in a permissible way and which one has not? It cannot, it is required to make a moral judgement and in doing so, it must endorse either one belief system or the other AND it must prohibit the loser from acting. That is both an issue of Free Exercise and Establishment. Our government should be regulating us to "be nice" when we deal with others.
Kennedy actually wrote in his opinion that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's decision was based on, “the government’s own assessment of offensiveness” which violates the First Amendment.
-
Kennedy actually wrote in his opinion that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's decision was based on, “the government’s own assessment of offensiveness” which violates the First Amendment.
To me, that falls into Establishment, which I've maintained from the beginning was a hidden aspect of this. The government must choose sides and in doing so must endorse one belief over the other.
-
To me, that falls into Establishment, which I've maintained from the beginning was a hidden aspect of this. The government must choose sides and in doing so must endorse one belief over the other.
Or refuse to allow states and municipalities to infringe on the First Amendment Rights of citizens even if it hurts their little feelings of homosexual attention whores.
-
Well, now you folks are just making shit up to defend a popular(but not protected) opinion. Rights in conflict is as old as time. Gays have a right to be gay, and do gay stuff, including buy a cake. Faith/spirit believers have a right to practice their religion with out any interference from the govt. Neither one of them has a right NOT to be offended.
The customer is paying for a product. If you don't like it, then go clean toilets, pan for gold, make tires or whatever. But - when you are in business, and someone comes in off the street, you do not get to play the religion card and pick and choose.
Sorry(not really)
-
It's kinda funny(not haha funny) watching the twisting of logic to protect ones own ox from being gored. If it were some panty-waist college kid, whining about his safe space from a 'microaggression' all y'all would be skewering the poor little shit unmercifully. But wait - when it happens to MY SPECIAL INTEREST - suddenly it's hands off.
Ridiculous.
-
It's kinda funny(not haha funny) watching the twisting of logic to protect ones own ox from being gored. If it were some panty-waist college kid, whining about his safe space from a 'microaggression' all y'all would be skewering the poor little shit unmercifully. But wait - when it happens to MY SPECIAL INTEREST - suddenly it's hands off.
Ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is the idea that a government can dictate beliefs to people. Who is the government? It's just a subset of people. So one subset of people can decide for everyone else what social behavior is right and what is not?
It isn't just my special interest, it's yours too. I don't know what your beliefs are, but the rules that protect a baker's religion are the same rules that protect Quakers from being forced to kill in the military. It protects body modification, Greenpeace, Scientology, and even those believe themselves to be Jedi. It should protect everyone, but we've screwed it is and that's why we have trouble knowing that all men means everyone.
Live with respect for others.
-
Go find a safe space. There's a baptist/pentacost church on every corner in my little world here. I'm sure there's a mosque every 30 feet where you live. You don't want your magical spirits offended? Go there, be at one with the universe, or whatever. When you put on the baking hat, then bake and decorate a damn cake. And when you sell it and take the customer's money say; 'thank you sir, may I have another'.
Get over yourself. You aren't the be-all, end-all of creation, just a small-town pastry/cake tool.
-
Go find a safe space. There's a baptist/pentacost church on every corner in my little world here. I'm sure there's a mosque every 30 feet where you live. You don't want your magical spirits offended? Go there, be at one with the universe, or whatever. When you put on the baking hat, then bake and decorate a damn cake. And when you sell it and take the customer's money say; 'thank you sir, may I have another'.
See, straw man again. You are projecting a false image. I live in on the outskirts of a pretty small southern town, population around 30,000. There's lots of churches of all denominations but no mosques at all. The closest church to me is a Church of Christ, but within walking distance, there's 3 Baptist churches, one new age Christian church, an LDS church, a Methodist church and a bible thumping Evangelical church. On most sunny days about half the houses are flying American flags and the kids are playing in the yards. It's a nice place, probably because we don't get a lot of ugly neighbors here sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
You are one of the last people that is going to tell me how to relate to God - you've pretty much shot your load of moral authority by trying to berate me. No, if someone asks me to do something that I believe God finds detestable, I'm going to error on the side of my immortal soul and refuse to offend Him. For me, that would include making a wedding cake to celebrate homosexuality. If you cannot respect that, then I'm sorry that you're driven by those emotions, but they'll have no impact on me. Not that it matters because I don't do wedding cakes.
Respect for other people's beliefs is perhaps the most American cultural value that there is. What happened?
-
Without a functional spiritual consciousness by a group of people, and without their actually living by it, America would not exist. In fact, we have speculated that indeed, America as a free and functional nation might not exist within the foreseeable future as the direct result of the crumbling of said consciousness and freedom to live by it.
Hence, you all would not be affluent enough, unless you were among the few loyal servants to whatever dystopian leadership existed, would not be able to realize your dreams to fly and own an airplane. Or a nice home. Or have a job you enjoy. Or give generously to charities of your choice. Or retire comfortably. And so on.
So see, living by spiritual principles, at least by Christian ones, creates a functional democracy and more opportunities for human flourishing. Straying significantly from those principles creates chaos and depravity and dysfunction. You get more of what you raise up and praise and glorify.
-
Libertarian principles do not include a concept of “public accomodation” because enforcing it would immediately clash with the fundamental principle of non-aggression. Consider that a baker requiring shoes and shirts be worn before entering his “public accomodation” bakery is engaging in discrimination. Yet fortunately for the baker the government has not ruled the shirtless or shoeless as protected classes. If someday someone manages to tie those actions to some “protected class”....
-
The customer is paying for a product. If you don't like it, then go clean toilets, pan for gold, make tires or whatever. But - when you are in business, and someone comes in off the street, you do not get to play the religion card and pick and choose.
Once again, that's not how it works. Businesses have a right to refuse service to certain individuals on specific grounds. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal to have signs that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" or, "No shirt, no shoes, no sales" and other similar signs.
Your rights and freedoms extend until they reach that of another person's. Your rights, freedoms, and beliefs are no more important nor less important than mine; they are equal.
As an aside, if you passionately believe that this baker is treating people unfairly, the best thing to do would be to not purchase his products. Shop elsewhere and encourage your friends to as well. The only color that matters is green and if this guy is really that much of a bigot, then word will get out and he will go out of business. Your money speaks much louder.
-
Without a functional spiritual consciousness by a group of people, and without their actually living by it, America would not exist.
Oh - my. Now that is a statement to end all statements. We usually agree quite a lot but this is just beyond the pale. I'm guessing that you weren't aware the majority of colonists were rejecting control by the church of England? The framers wanted nothing to do with religion in govt? Some of them were deists(modern day secular humanists). Those who did have a faith were cognizant of the damage done throughout history involvement with the control of govts. There was ample history from Rome forward.
Madison was trained/educated in the church and for the most part rejected all the trappings of faith and took up deism before authoring much of the constitution. There is NO mention of faith, spirits, religion, or other trappings of theology anywhere in the constitution. In fact, the only mention of god in any of the early writings is in the declaration where it is the deist's "nature's god" and not the spirits unseen, unheard, unknowing religious god.
I have to disagree that if anything, a lack of religion, and a disquiet by the framers for any spiritual guidance gave rise to the nation we have today. If there was a 'church of America' this would be a far, far different(and worse) country.
The hubris here is just - breathtaking.
-
...the best thing to do would be to not purchase his products. Shop elsewhere and encourage your friends to as well. The only color that matters is green and if this guy is really that much of a bigot, then word will get out and he will go out of business. Your money speaks much louder.
Actually, the government has already run him out of business. They removed his business license as part of his fine and punishment.
It infuriates me to even write those words. Is this the country I put myself in danger for, one that can decide that a citizen has the wrong thoughts and must be executed?
Shame on the state of Colorado.
-
Those who detest freedom usually do so with a very bigoted agenda.
People who file lawsuits because they accidentally saw a Nativity in a public place do so because they either attention whores, seeking money, or, like the ACLU desperately want both.
The only route to socialism in America is through eviscerating our civil rights in exchange for permission from the government to have our own thoughts and opinions.
States like Colorado have become the very twin of Communist China where the leader said that [people have the right to be as religious as they wish but ONLY in their minds. The progressives want that kind of country. It gives them a bone every time they think about it.
Our First Amendment rights far exceed the power of the state to object to our opinions but the queers, feminists (which is just another side of the homosexual militancy at the end of the day) and crazed muslim apologists can't live with people who won't think and say only what they're told. A big part of their agenda is to disarm us all for the purpose of overlaying our first amendment with a very strict and controlled state that permits you to think say only what they tell you to, and only when they say it is permissible to do so.
Liberalism has always been about ending all civil rights and empowering an all powerful state to substitute for individual liberty.
-
Oh - my. Now that is a statement to end all statements. We usually agree quite a lot but this is just beyond the pale. I'm guessing that you weren't aware the majority of colonists were rejecting control by the church of England? The framers wanted nothing to do with religion in govt? Some of them were deists(modern day secular humanists). Those who did have a faith were cognizant of the damage done throughout history involvement with the control of govts. There was ample history from Rome forward.
Madison was trained/educated in the church and for the most part rejected all the trappings of faith and took up deism before authoring much of the constitution. There is NO mention of faith, spirits, religion, or other trappings of theology anywhere in the constitution. In fact, the only mention of god in any of the early writings is in the declaration where it is the deist's "nature's god" and not the spirits unseen, unheard, unknowing religious god.
I have to disagree that if anything, a lack of religion, and a disquiet by the framers for any spiritual guidance gave rise to the nation we have today. If there was a 'church of America' this would be a far, far different(and worse) country.
The hubris here is just - breathtaking.
Of course we should not have a state church. But remember that Deists are also creationists. They believed we are created with inalienable rights, which implies a Creator. The word "secularism" didn't even show up in the lexicon until the mid-1800s, so universally shared was the concept of a creator God.
Naturally, the framers of our Constitution did not want a theocracy. Their chief aim was to guarantee individual freedom. The government existed to provide an economic mileau and protection from invasion. People should be free to live according to their religious lights. While the founders attempted to keep the government out of religion and religion out of government, our political scene has long included official prayer, the office of a Senate Chaplain, and the presence of chaplains and priests in the military. And so on.
I maintain my position that a spiritual consciousness, the awareness of principles and something greater than oneself and outside oneself, held by the majority of citizenry, creates a society amenable to human flourishing. I will go so far as to say that the attempt to stamp out this belief through whatever means necessary, as we see on the Left today, does not enhance our culture but damages it.
-
States like Colorado have become the very twin of Communist China where the leader said that [people have the right to be as religious as they wish but ONLY in their minds.
That's a bit extreme. Colorado is nothing like China. It was a commission that made the decision. The commission is made up of 7 members, not one single leader. Specifically, the Supreme Court called out one member of that commission who made a disrespectful and unacceptable statement. The commission made a mistake but that doesn't mean they're all bad people who are communists.
-
So...about that equality....
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/06/19/florida-judge-rules-against-transgender-woman-who-claimed-discrimination-at-a-ladies-only-event
Apparently if you're a male exotic dancer, you get to refuse to dance for transgender women.
Good to know... ;)
-
Of course we should not have a state church. But remember that Deists are also creationists. They believed we are created with inalienable rights, which implies a Creator. The word "secularism" didn't even show up in the lexicon until the mid-1800s, so universally shared was the concept of a creator God.
Naturally, the framers of our Constitution did not want a theocracy. Their chief aim was to guarantee individual freedom. The government existed to provide an economic mileau and protection from invasion. People should be free to live according to their religious lights. While the founders attempted to keep the government out of religion and religion out of government, our political scene has long included official prayer, the office of a Senate Chaplain, and the presence of chaplains and priests in the military. And so on.
I maintain my position that a spiritual consciousness, the awareness of principles and something greater than oneself and outside oneself, held by the majority of citizenry, creates a society amenable to human flourishing. I will go so far as to say that the attempt to stamp out this belief through whatever means necessary, as we see on the Left today, does not enhance our culture but damages it.
Becky, well said I agree with your earlier post as well. Invflatspin erred in creating a straw man from your post, implying that you believed that the founders desired a “state religion.” Your statement could not have been further from the truth.
The founders came from a belief in higher power, however that may be construed by the world’s faiths. Because of that, they cleverly crafted the First Amendment to ensure freedom OF religion; the left believes it should mean freedom FROM religion. It does not, and that’s a fraudulent way to read that amendment.
-
No strawman created from what she wrote. Here is the exact wording, having nothing to do with the response to her post:
" If there was a 'church of America' this would be a far, far different(and worse) country." If anything, this is in reference to all the English, and other nations who rejected the church of England, and the crown, and all the trappings of faith based govt from our ancestors.
Y'all think your anointed special and that your feces is just so fragrant. Wanting special dispensation to ignore commercial standards because of some belief system. Well, guess what - you just aren't that special after all. Here's where this kind of thinking leads. Muslim NYC cabby, has his light on, it's 2am Sunday, and there are three scantily clad girls leaving a bar. They see his light is on, they see the driver, he looks right at them, and drives away. Don't try to read anything into this. The cab roof light is on, he is avail for a pickup fare, but the driver just shakes his head and drives off, leaving the girls stranded. We KNOW(because we have driven cabs before) that this is against the law. The medallion has a ton of rules, and you do not get to pick and choose a fare based on race, religion, creed, sex, or nationality. I suppose the faithers here think this is just fine, no ride for you bitches! Mohamed would be OFFENDED. There are a million examples like this every day. Go and practice your religion. No one is stopping you, specifically not the govt. But - when you hang out a shingle, and offer goods and services - you do not get to choose anymore. Too bad.
-
No strawman created from what she wrote. Here is the exact wording, having nothing to do with the response to her post:
" If there was a 'church of America' this would be a far, far different(and worse) country." If anything, this is in reference to all the English, and other nations who rejected the church of England, and the crown, and all the trappings of faith based govt from our ancestors.
Y'all think your anointed special and that your feces is just so fragrant. Wanting special dispensation to ignore commercial standards because of some belief system. Well, guess what - you just aren't that special after all. Here's where this kind of thinking leads. Muslim NYC cabby, has his light on, it's 2am Sunday, and there are three scantily clad girls leaving a bar. They see his light is on, they see the driver, he looks right at them, and drives away. Don't try to read anything into this. The cab roof light is on, he is avail for a pickup fare, but the driver just shakes his head and drives off, leaving the girls stranded. We KNOW(because we have driven cabs before) that this is against the law. The medallion has a ton of rules, and you do not get to pick and choose a fare based on race, religion, creed, sex, or nationality. I suppose the faithers here think this is just fine, no ride for you bitches! Mohamed would be OFFENDED. There are a million examples like this every day. Go and practice your religion. No one is stopping you, specifically not the govt. But - when you hang out a shingle, and offer goods and services - you do not get to choose anymore. Too bad.
Bullshit. In post 81 you ridiculed Becky and proceeded to imply that she spoke about the endorsement of state-sponsored religion, which she did not. You created a straw man implying something she did not say.
I never took you for a coward but I guess I was wrong.
Since when do “commercial standards” trump religious freedom? You’re the one sounding like a snowflake.
-
I don't think accepting that there are principles and perhaps creative forces outside ourselves really is a "belief system." It's entirely possible to live and act as if there are such, while hewing to no religion at all, really.
For example, sex has some very real-world consequences. One can quite solidly teach their offspring that waiting until marriage to have sex is smart. Or that adulterous behavior is to be avoided. Or to be mindful of the needs of others. Religion need not be involved in these behaviors at all. They simply facilitate happiness and a more functional society.
And yes, commercial providers can easily and justifiably turn away those whose behavior is not conducive to the common good, or is not something that the provider wants to support. We all do this all the time, in every area of our lives. The freedom to do so is paramount, and is exactly what the founders strove to accomplish.
Starbucks is a good example. They accepted, against all common sense or good business practice, the indefinite presence in their stores of, and use of their facilities by, people who do not fulfill the role of customer. They did this to signal that they "accept" "everyone." But what happens when you accept non-customer behavior over time? The Great Starbucks Restroom Debacle.
I posit that accepting the "marriage" of two men as if it caused no harm to individuals or society opens just such a door.
Read the Down and Dirty thread, and then we'll talk. 😎
-
Bullshit. In post 81 you ridiculed Becky and proceeded to imply that she spoke about the endorsement of state-sponsored religion, which she did not. You created a straw man implying something she did not say.
I never took you for a coward but I guess I was wrong.
Since when do “commercial standards” trump religious freedom? You’re the one sounding like a snowflake.
And bullshit to you. I implied nothing. There is no statement regarding 'you said' or anything having to do with her POV. England had and has a state sponsored religion. We left England rule and declared independence. As part of that declaration there is the wording "nature's god". This is relevant because it does NOT mean a god of faith, spirits, or any organized religion. It means exactly what it says - the god of nature. Her statements were outrageous, and completely out of touch with the founding of the US. We have never been, never will be, and have no intention of being a nation founded on christian(or any other 'principles').
"Without a functional spiritual consciousness by a group of people, and without their actually living by it, America would not exist."
"So see, living by spiritual principles, at least by Christian ones, creates a functional democracy and more opportunities for human flourishing. "
Now, just tell me what the four bolded passages here actually mean? You don't get to throw down 'church of America' without being called out. This is clear and unambiguous language written, and I completely and vehemently disagree with it. So does the rest of the American history, except those steeped in a warped religious view of history seen only through a lens clouded by floating spirits, etc.
And if being non-denominational and standing for equality for EVERYONE, with or without faith, gay, straight, bi, whatever makes me sound like a snowflake, then you just have to deal.
-
Ya know, I got give respect where it's due. You faithers really stick together, no matter how wrong y'all are, it is good to see that the 'team' backs each other up. And with such gusto and vigor! Well done, I say. Anyone not on your 'team', anyone not believing in some spiritual mythical vaporous apparition and it's pile on everyone! Call the guy names, attack his character, twist the words, belittle him/her publicly, whatever it takes to protect the team. Even if it's judgmental, and biased. Even if they can back it up with facts, and references. No matter! our team(and not their team) will always win! Even if we have to re-write history, we get to win - cuz, well the spirit apparition says so...
Well done, yes, well done. Y'all should be proud of how you represent.
-
You would deny that America exists because people holding to a set of principles (those fleeing England's king and oppression) crossed an ocean to get here, fought an extended and pragmatically hopeless war against said king, banded together under the common belief in a creator and creator-given rights, and wrote the most effective constitution in human history to guarantee those rights, asking the blessing of the creator in all their endeavors?
Where the dysfunction infects and destroys is in the breakdown of the structure of shared, solid principles like those I wrote about in my last post. We see it everywhere today. Much has been written about the single most culpable thing in America's cultural decline: lack of guiding principles. When everything is okay, nothing is okay.
BTW, you are noticeably overlooking much that I have stated in my last couple of posts. It seems you would rather rant upon tangential and incorrect interpretations of what I have said.
-
Know what else they were fleeing? Who makes a King? Why, the good ole church of England makes a king! As for 'their creator', sure I'm good with that. As long as we all agree that 'creator' means mommy and daddy. That's my creator, your creator(you aren't the immaculate conception, holding out?), Ben Franklin's creator, Jefferson's, and all the other framers. I don't think any of them were immaculately conceived either.
I think I know how to make the US better. We need to go back to when the church ruled the western world. About 800AD. What was that time called again? Oh yes, now I remember. It was called the Dark Ages. Only lasted 6-700 years.
I'm going to change my nom-de-plume. Thanks for pointing out where I went wrong.
-
You keep bringing it back to putting "church" and "a set of guiding principles" in the same political bag. I'm saying they can be separated, and that when guiding principles are taken away, disparaged and denied, chaos and dysfunction occur.
Even inverted flatspins operate by a set of principles, or laws (physics). It all comes down to what works and what doesn't. What enables humans to flourish and what impedes that.
I think most people would agree that loving people is important, but that we're not required in any way to accept and support what they do. You may not think two men marrying harms anyone. I happen to think it does. You don't have to bring church or religion into it. At all.
Why are you ignoring the Down and Dirty thread?
-
Ya know, I got give respect where it's due. You faithers really stick together, no matter how wrong y'all are, it is good to see that the 'team' backs each other up. And with such gusto and vigor!
I’m an atheist, so your angry outburst does not apply to me. My opinion is based on maximum liberty and the non-aggression principle.
People have discriminated for thousands of years. Despite that, civility toward those of differing beliefs has tended to increase sans the demands of the local gendarmes. Your examples generally ignore the existence of alternatives when discrimination occurs. And the consequences. You argue as if the only consequences people take into account when choosing to take some action are legal consequences. That to me is the foundation for an all-encompassing state, dictating the finer points of day-to-day activity.
-
First, not angry at all. Amused maybe, and certainly entertained but not angry.
Next, 'my examples'? I gave a theoretical case of bias showing clear discrimination based on gender(sex) and possibly age. I was advised that this was ok type of discrimination, because it offended the person of faith. As for the consequence, the driver doesn't get a fare. I don't know what happens to the girls on the street at 2am with no ride. Nothing good, I would opine.
-
First, not angry at all. Amused maybe, and certainly entertained but not angry.
Next, 'my examples'? I gave a theoretical case of bias showing clear discrimination based on gender(sex) and possibly age. I was advised that this was ok type of discrimination, because it offended the person of faith. As for the consequence, the driver doesn't get a fare. I don't know what happens to the girls on the street at 2am with no ride. Nothing good, I would opine.
The girls are packing heat and mace and know how to use ‘em. The men are gentlemen and all the children are above average. At least in a libertarian society. 8)
-
So, some airlines said today they would not fly these illegal imigrant kids. How is that different from not wanting to bake a cake?
-
Your examples generally ignore the existence of alternatives when discrimination occurs.
Brilliant point. The girls ignored by the offended taxi driver have Uber now.
-
Brilliant point. The girls ignored by the offended taxi driver have Uber now.
Why is it a brilliant point?
-
I think most people would agree that loving people is important, but that we're not required in any way to accept and support what they do. You may not think two men marrying harms anyone. I happen to think it does. You don't have to bring church or religion into it. At all.
I don't think that love is required at all as long as respect for their human status is present all around. I don't love some people here at all, but when I operate with respect with regards to them, then things tend to work.
Of everything in our country, I believe respect for others is the virtue missing most often.
-
Why is it a brilliant point?
Because it points out that most of the conversation supporting laws to force private businesses to accommodate certain customers seem to imply that the rejected costumer cannot obtain the service another way. In a free market atmosphere there will always be options.
Either way this goes, it is potentially a slippery slope. There are problems either way.
-
Ya know, I got give respect where it's due. You faithers really stick together, no matter how wrong y'all are, it is good to see that the 'team' backs each other up. And with such gusto and vigor! Well done, I say. Anyone not on your 'team', anyone not believing in some spiritual mythical vaporous apparition and it's pile on everyone! Call the guy names, attack his character, twist the words, belittle him/her publicly, whatever it takes to protect the team. Even if it's judgmental, and biased. Even if they can back it up with facts, and references. No matter! our team(and not their team) will always win! Even if we have to re-write history, we get to win - cuz, well the spirit apparition says so...
Well done, yes, well done. Y'all should be proud of how you represent.
I dispute that. I have said many times that I am not religious, but I respect the religious values. But I just can't bring myself to believe in the mystical qualities and beliefs of most religions.
But even with that, I find that the "faithers" often agree with my opinions and values. Stan has only called me a filthy, nasty name (liberal) once, but that was because he disagreed with my opinion. Not because he disagreed with my (non)religious beliefs.
-
For me it is not about religion, it is about VALUES. It only happens that many Judeo Christian values are positive, but nonetheless, it is human values when embraced as a society that good things happen.
-
A Tweet from Sarah Huckabee Sanders.....
Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS (https://twitter.com/POTUS) and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so
-
Evidently, it is OK for the Democrats, Progressives, and Leftists to act in a vile manner to those in which they disagree. It only reinforces the fact that they are the ones that hate freedom, liberty, and tolerance. They preach "inclusiveness", and "diversity" yet do the opposite unless you agree lock step. I am glad to be on the other side of these obsessed trolls.
-
A Tweet from Sarah Huckabee Sanders.....
Hypocrisy is the sole family value of liberals.
-
And so it continues...
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/06/24/walgreens-pharmacist-allegedly-denies-arizona-woman-miscarriage-medicine-over-his-personal-beliefs.html
-
If teh stupid people stay out of it (lawyers, scumbags at ACLU and Politicians) the free market will work the whole problem out without their help.
That's what scares the liberals.
They hate the concept that anyone can do anything with out their explicit permission.
-
Because it points out that most of the conversation supporting laws to force private businesses to accommodate certain customers seem to imply that the rejected costumer cannot obtain the service another way. In a free market atmosphere there will always be options.
Either way this goes, it is potentially a slippery slope. There are problems either way.
Is there something about the modern free market that is fundamentally different than that of the 60s? (The answer might be yes, but it's an interesting question.
-
Is there something about the modern free market that is fundamentally different than that of the 60s? (The answer might be yes, but it's an interesting question.
I think that the free market itself works the same as it always did. The drivers of the free market have changed dramatically. Attention spans are on the nanosecond scale, everyone has access to a worldwide platform, and the average person rarely reads past the headlines before turning their outrage up to 11.
Walgreens has a policy that if a particular pharmacist objects to filling a prescription, then it's passed off to another pharmacist. I have no doubt that this is how it works hundreds of times a day with no issues. This one screwed up and didn't follow policy. That's not what made the headline and now the snowflake generation is outraged at Walgreens in general without stopping to get the facts. In the past the pharmacist would have been corrected, the customer would have been served, and while there's some local upset all would be well.
But no. Now the person who was wronged broadcasts the mistake without facts and without giving the store a chance to make it right and there you go. Market force trigger with no good reason. It doesn't help that there are professional outragers ready to make things worse.
-
Evidently, it is OK for the Democrats, Progressives, and Leftists to act in a vile manner to those in which they disagree. It only reinforces the fact that they are the ones that hate freedom, liberty, and tolerance. They preach "inclusiveness", and "diversity" yet do the opposite unless you agree lock step. I am glad to be on the other side of these obsessed trolls.
You realize that this is the same thing as the Colorado baker, just in reverse, right?
Look, if the owner of the Red Hen wants to tell 40+% of her potential customers to kiss off because she cannot abide to serve them because of her moral standards, then I'm fine with that. Better to have the bigots condemned out in the open than breeding in the closets.
-
I think the outrage on both sides is for media consumption. UAL is still in business(I'm never booking them again) after their CEO down to the lowest gate agent figured out they don't have to be honest or care about anyone. Y'all are going to be sorry some day that we've apparently made a special exception for denying service. I can now claim that the flying spaghetti monster told me I'm not to have anything to do with ______(fill in blank), and that's ok. Because - I have, how was it worded? "A sincerely held religious belief". Doubt my sincerity? How dare you? Do not ever denigrate the power of the flying spaghetti monster. His noodly appendages are the most righteous of all deities. And so on, and so forth. It is the road to ruin, paved with faith.
-
I disagree. People will solve this the way they always do. Some will fall for the bullshit and play along, the rest will immediately get over the screaming bullshit and go about their lives.
The new everything is an outrage, pansy left will get tired of being perpetually offended once they realize how small the subset is of people who give flying fuck what they think. Couple that with the micro-sized attention span of liberals and you have the perfect argument to wait them out and watch for the next make believe outrage that also only lasts a few days.
-
I think that the free market itself works the same as it always did. The drivers of the free market have changed dramatically. Attention spans are on the nanosecond scale, everyone has access to a worldwide platform, and the average person rarely reads past the headlines before turning their outrage up to 11.
Walgreens has a policy that if a particular pharmacist objects to filling a prescription, then it's passed off to another pharmacist. I have no doubt that this is how it works hundreds of times a day with no issues. This one screwed up and didn't follow policy. That's not what made the headline and now the snowflake generation is outraged at Walgreens in general without stopping to get the facts. In the past the pharmacist would have been corrected, the customer would have been served, and while there's some local upset all would be well.
But no. Now the person who was wronged broadcasts the mistake without facts and without giving the store a chance to make it right and there you go. Market force trigger with no good reason. It doesn't help that there are professional outragers ready to make things worse.
What I'm exploring is whether there is something about the current free market that is different from the 60s. Lots of folks are saying that owners of public accommodation should be free to deny service to anyone they please for any reason, and that the free market will sort it out. But there was a time when the free market apparently didn't sort it out. So what is different now?
-
A business owner has the right for who they do business with. The Left absolutely agrees with that right now, even if they absolutely disagreed with it a couple of weeks ago when it applied to wedding cakes.
The Left is ok with it because they hate Donald Trump and everything and everyone associated with him and they are willing to throw 70 years of civil rights progress out the window to screw over just a few people. The principles behind the CRA are to treat everyone fairly, but the left stopped believing in that years ago. I'm also ok with it because I would much rather have bigots out in public than breeding underground.
Now the rest is a problem. Celebrating bigotry is never OK and trespassing and creating a public disturbance outside a public official's home is way out of bounds. The Left has been working themselves up to this fever pitch for a while and it isn't nearly over. Soon they will reach a point where they have convinced each other that actual violence is permissible against conservatives. I know it has happened already on a small scale, it's going to get a lot worse. They aren't listening to anything except the extremist calls for violence.
What Maxine Waters said this weekend is probably legitimately criminal and the definition of conspiracy. She is instigating violence.
-
What Maxine Waters said this weekend is probably legitimately criminal and the definition of conspiracy. She is instigating violence.
But she is an icon of the alt left progressives, therefore she gets a pass. If a republican congressman had made the same remarks about BHO and his team while they were in office, the demands of his resignation would be 24/7 in the MSM.
-
What I'm exploring is whether there is something about the current free market that is different from the 60s. Lots of folks are saying that owners of public accommodation should be free to deny service to anyone they please for any reason, and that the free market will sort it out. But there was a time when the free market apparently didn't sort it out. So what is different now?
The difference now is that the Left has quit trying. They don't believe in equal rights anymore, they believe in biased rights for their side.
Have you heard the stuff about New York high schools? Apparently the testing is biased toward smart people and those that work hard, and therefore should be done away with because there's too many Asians making it into the best public high schools. Why is this a problem? Because Asians are not one of the Democrat's favored classes. They couldn't be, they've been way too successful.
-
A business owner has the right for who they do business with. The Left absolutely agrees with that right now, even if they absolutely disagreed with it a couple of weeks ago when it applied to wedding cakes.
The Left is ok with it because they hate Donald Trump and everything and everyone associated with him and they are willing to throw 70 years of civil rights progress out the window to screw over just a few people. The principles behind the CRA are to treat everyone fairly, but the left stopped believing in that years ago. I'm also ok with it because I would much rather have bigots out in public than breeding underground.
Now the rest is a problem. Celebrating bigotry is never OK and trespassing and creating a public disturbance outside a public official's home is way out of bounds. The Left has been working themselves up to this fever pitch for a while and it isn't nearly over. Soon they will reach a point where they have convinced each other that actual violence is permissible against conservatives. I know it has happened already on a small scale, it's going to get a lot worse. They aren't listening to anything except the extremist calls for violence.
What Maxine Waters said this weekend is probably legitimately criminal and the definition of conspiracy. She is instigating violence.
Denying service(or a meal) to someone based on their political stance is fine. Political standards has not been a protected class since 1950s after McCarthy and J Edgar. Comparing it to the christian baker dust-up is a false equivalence. However you are correct on where this is going. It's no longer acceptable to just BE a conservative, much less express your conservatism in public. Brings back fond memories -- 'Are you now, or have you ever been a _______________?'. Ahh - good times. (snort)
-
Comparing it to the christian baker dust-up is a false equivalence.
Only if you are talking about a flawed legal law. I am talking about morality and principles because I believe getting those right is far more important. If treating people equally is important then it is important for all characteristics, not just the half dozen or so called out specifically by law.
Ergo, the Left is not interested in treating people equally anymore. They want biased rights for their side.
-
Only if you are talking about a flawed legal law. I am talking about morality and principles because I believe getting those right is far more important. If treating people equally is important then it is important for all characteristics, not just the half dozen or so called out specifically by law.
Ergo, the Left is not interested in treating people equally anymore. They want biased rights for their side.
Well, you opened your post with this: "A business owner has the right for who they do business with." That was the context of the statement. If we're talking about what is morally or ethically correct, I'm on board. But as far as rights go, I can kick anyone out of any business for their politics and the law can't touch me. Which is why there is no legal backlash for the recent events showing the lefties being the tolerant, all-loving, peaceful, generous, kumbaya, humanity-loving folk.
And of course they want biased rights(there's that word again).
-
What I'm exploring is whether there is something about the current free market that is different from the 60s. Lots of folks are saying that owners of public accommodation should be free to deny service to anyone they please for any reason, and that the free market will sort it out. But there was a time when the free market apparently didn't sort it out. So what is different now?
This is an interesting question. I think that it has to do with the time to spread. In the 1960s if someone decided to poop in all democrat hamburgers in a restaurant it would take a long time for the word to get out. Anyone outside of a radius of a few miles would not even hear about it until the next day in the newspaper and by the time it spread to enough people to make a market impact the pooper would be in prison and everything back to normal.
Now, if someone in a business says "I think you're a poopyhead because you're a democrat" it's national news in seconds and the mob is there in minutes. No time for dealing with the issue rationally and calmly. Market forces still work but the market has become worldwide instead of local and the time to alert the market is seconds instead of days.
-
Nancy Pelosi is trying to get Maxine to shut up. I hope she fails. We need Maxine out there every day fomenting her brand of hatred.
Gov. Huckabee claims the Red Hen owner followed the Sanders party to another restaurant and harassed them there also. I put in the rumor stage at this point.
-
What I'm exploring is whether there is something about the current free market that is different from the 60s. Lots of folks are saying that owners of public accommodation should be free to deny service to anyone they please for any reason, and that the free market will sort it out. But there was a time when the free market apparently didn't sort it out. So what is different now?
Jim Crow laws were operating - that's government, not free market involvement. The 1960s saw those laws overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.
(Blacks did use their freedom to do things like establish their own banks to avoid racial bias from some banks.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States)
-
And so it continues...
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/06/24/walgreens-pharmacist-allegedly-denies-arizona-woman-miscarriage-medicine-over-his-personal-beliefs.html
This is so deeply stupid. The woman's baby had already died. She had a rotting corpse in her uterus. The doctor rightly wanted to clear it out as soon as possible in the best interest of the health of the mother physically and to spare her emotionally from having to carry around her dead baby until Mother Nature got around to getting rid of it. If I were that woman Walgreens would be hearing from my lawyer.
-
This is so deeply stupid. The woman's baby had already died. She had a rotting corpse in her uterus. The doctor rightly wanted to clear it out as soon as possible in the best interest of the health of the mother physically and to spare her emotionally from having to carry around her dead baby until Mother Nature got around to getting rid of it. If I were that woman Walgreens would be hearing from my lawyer.
Yes, well it appears the pharmacist acted both within Walgreens policy and within the state pharmacy board’s policies. Most likely they would not hear from your lawyer, unless you typically ignore your lawyer’s advice and pursue fruitless actions.
The only question here is whether or not the pharmacist correctly referred the lady. That is a Walgreen’s procedural thing. She got her drugs elsewhere.
-
The democrats have lusted for another Joseph McCarthy for long that now that they have it in the Alt Left violent, lunatics, they are too stupid to see the damage they are doing.
-
Yes, well it appears the pharmacist acted both within Walgreens policy and within the state pharmacy board’s policies. Most likely they would not hear from your lawyer, unless you typically ignore your lawyer’s advice and pursue fruitless actions.
The only question here is whether or not the pharmacist correctly referred the lady. That is a Walgreen’s procedural thing. She got her drugs elsewhere.
Like everything reported in the left wing press these days: There is that the communists report and then there's the truth.
-
Yes, well it appears the pharmacist acted both within Walgreens policy and within the state pharmacy board’s policies. Most likely they would not hear from your lawyer, unless you typically ignore your lawyer’s advice and pursue fruitless actions.
The only question here is whether or not the pharmacist correctly referred the lady. That is a Walgreen’s procedural thing. She got her drugs elsewhere.
I'm not picking on you specifically here, but this is the kind of 'policy' change that the ACLU folks salivate over. Things like this that are written down, and show a clear bias are just what they go after. They would sue both the pharma, and Walgreens. And, after sufficient discovery to prove what you say, they can use the MSM to shame Walgreens into change of policy. However, I doubt they would get the pharma to change his personal biased position, no matter how offensive, stupid, and biased.
-
I'm not picking on you specifically here, but this is the kind of 'policy' change that the ACLU folks salivate over. Things like this that are written down, and show a clear bias are just what they go after. They would sue both the pharma, and Walgreens. And, after sufficient discovery to prove what you say, they can use the MSM to shame Walgreens into change of policy. However, I doubt they would get the pharma to change his personal biased position, no matter how offensive, stupid, and biased.
It isn't a change. It's been that way for decades. They will have a tough time saying that the state law is illegal.
-
I’m very pleased about the SCOTUS decision about the florist in Richland, WA. Heard her lawyer on the radio Monday, saying that the case was unique in that the State of Washington (our unhinged AG) brought this suit against an individual, denying her religious freedom. States should NOT do that. Hopefully our AG will back down, but I doubt it. He has his eye on the governorship, and slavers after the loony Seattle vote.
-
That didn't take long. State of CO is back in the baker guy's business again.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/15/jack-phillips-sues-colorado/
To which his only recourse is to file suit against the state and the chair of the civil rights commission. This is what happens when judges make up rights.
-
That didn't take long. State of CO is back in the baker guy's business again.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/15/jack-phillips-sues-colorado/
To which his only recourse is to file suit against the state and the chair of the civil rights commission. This is what happens when judges make up rights.
Disgusting abuse of the law. Colorado is turning despotic.
-
That didn't take long. State of CO is back in the baker guy's business again.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/15/jack-phillips-sues-colorado/
To which his only recourse is to file suit against the state and the chair of the civil rights commission. This is what happens when judges make up rights.
There are going to be more of these "test cases" where we see people making ridiculous demands and then filing lawsuits to force the issue. It'll be interesting to see how a court reacts to this given the Supreme Court's ruling and the fact that he continues to offer other goods and services to perspective clients, just not ones that violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.
-
Back a few pages, I expressed concern on the slippery slope of 'sincerely held religious belief'. My flying spaghetti monster is near an dear to my thoughts and prayers. Anyone who does not believe as I do concerning his noodley appendages may suffer from no service by me. Sincerely.
/sarcasm
-
The issue, as I see it, is that the government, nor the courts, have any legal right to decided what religious convictions are legal and which aren't. That action violates the establishment clause immediately.
Once upon a time, when judges weren't wholly owned subsidiaries of people like barack obama and george soros, they didn't feel the need to to try.
Now every decision of the supreme court seems to be split down party lines, instead of constitutional truth.
-
The issue, as I see it, is that the government, nor the courts, have any legal right to decided what religious convictions are legal and which aren't. That action violates the establishment clause immediately.
That's not entirely true. As with any other right, that right stops when it impacts someone else's right. Honor killings come to mind.
-
The issue, as I see it, is that the government, nor the courts, have any legal right to decided what religious convictions are legal and which aren't. That action violates the establishment clause immediately.
100%.
-
Honour killing isn't about religion. It's about violence and sexual slavery, no matter how you cut it.
-
Honour killing isn't about religion. It's about violence and sexual slavery, no matter how you cut it.
It was an example. The broader point is that you can't claim something under freedom of religion when it impacts someone else's right.
-
We have given, or maybe the govt has assumed many more powers than were originally intended. Including deciding which religious means test is suitable for 'sincerely held beliefs'. My spaghetti monster is a perfect example, when compared to long-held, and existing faith systems. However, if we take the LDS church, they have only been around for a few hundred years. Is that sincere enough? Who knows, but the govt gets to decide that now that we've gone down this road.
It's a bad place we are in, and those of faith have put us squarely in the mix by actively defying the standards of commerce for their own personal beliefs. It's no different than the muslim leaving female cab pax stranded, or any other personal biases.
-
We have given, or maybe the govt has assumed many more powers than were originally intended. Including deciding which religious means test is suitable for 'sincerely held beliefs'. My spaghetti monster is a perfect example, when compared to long-held, and existing faith systems. However, if we take the LDS church, they have only been around for a few hundred years. Is that sincere enough? Who knows, but the govt gets to decide that now that we've gone down this road.
It's a bad place we are in, and those of faith have put us squarely in the mix by actively defying the standards of commerce for their own personal beliefs. It's no different than the muslim leaving female cab pax stranded, or any other personal biases.
Your spaghetti monster is a horrible example. You are claiming that anyone who does not believe as you do is inferior and beneath being served. The fact that you push this as your example just proves that you don't get it.
The Masterpiece case et al are not about whether or not Phillips agreed with Craig's beliefs. It is whether or not Craig can demand that Philips violate his own belief. Turning back to the spaghetti monster you worship..if you operate a restaurant, can I force you to serve me spaghetti? Can you be forced to eat it? Or bringing it back into modern context, could I force a Muslim chef to serve me non halal meat? That is the more proper example.
Speaking of which - the leftist gay nazis are after Mr Phillips again in Colorado. This time it is because he would not make a custom pink anniversary cake with writing on it celebrating the 7th anniversary of someone's gender change.
-
Your spaghetti monster is a horrible example. You are claiming that anyone who does not believe as you do is inferior and beneath being served. The fact that you push this as your example just proves that you don't get it.
Well we strongly agree on one thing. I don't get it. I don't get why my my example is any better, or worse than an imaginary old man with a gray beard, and deep set eyes floating in the sky. Or, a pot bellied grinning guy sitting cross legged on a mat. Or a cow. Or some kind of ethereal floating glob of twinkling lights. They are all as probably as another, including my spaghetti monster. Of course I'm being facetious. I mean - christians starting with Jesus have been around for over 2000 years. Mohamed for about 1500. Some Roman gods go all the way back to Romulus and Remus, maybe 2300 years past? Chinese have gods that go back into the beginnings of recorded history, over 5000 years. Which one is right? Which one is wrong? Which one goes first? Which one is better? Best? Bigger, deeper, harder, meaner, nicer, more honest, more trustworthy? It's all a bunch of hoohah when it comes to making law. If I'm a Taoist, which is the only belief system which comes close to how I consider myself, is that worthy enough in the eyes of the US govt?
But - you are wrong in an assumption that I believe anyone not agreeing with my example is wrong/mistaken. Which is specifically why I put the "/sarcasm" qualifier on there. I'm - making - fun - of - all - of - you! Including the oh so high and mighty baker who wants to be in the baking business but doesn't want to bake 'certain' cakes, because of the belief/culture of the buyer. Baker - good, gay wedding - bad. Govt has to put in the restraints somehow.
Well, as covered all ready - the SCOTUS screwed up this opinion in every way they could. A narrow ruling that has been ignored by both sides. Each claiming ultimate victory. Not what the SCOTUS was supposed to do. I'm wishing in retrospect that SCOTUS had declined to opine on this and leave it to the states. Every one of the govt dept has screwed this up completely.
-
...Including the oh so high and mighty baker who wants to be in the baking business but doesn't want to bake 'certain' cakes...
There you go again, having it all backwards. He is not a baker that wants to be all moral. He is a moral man who bakes. He will be a moral man no matter what business he is in.
You aren't required to respect others. But you cannot escape the consequences of not respecting others, namely that nobody respects you.
-
Well the harassment tactics they're using against this baker certainly isn't gaining them any sympathy in my eyes.
-
There you go again, having it all backwards. He is not a baker that wants to be all moral. He is a moral man who bakes. He will be a moral man no matter what business he is in.
You aren't required to respect others. But you cannot escape the consequences of not respecting others, namely that nobody respects you.
It will be my 'cross to bear'. lolz. If you think respect from you is important to me - well, you couldn't be more wrong. Again. You aren't even on the long list, much less the short list, or any list at all. As for others, you really have no idea. ;)
-
Yeah, I am not talking about me at all.
Your call and unlike you I respect that...don’t go poking me in the eye and we are fine. I won’t waste any more time.
-
If I were the baker, I'd make them any cake they wanted, and charge them an exorbitant premium. Will the government set prices now? Of course the ingredients would be suspect (nothing really gross, nor harmful), but I guarantee it wouldn't taste good, nor look good once cut open.
-
The proof that there is no constitutional basis for the homo cake crisis is in fact that homo, lesbian bakers don’t have any legal obligation to bake cakes celebrating heterosexual celebrations.
There is no need to look any further..
-
Honour killing isn't about religion. It's about violence and sexual slavery, no matter how you cut it.
A belief which requires involuntary compulsion of another person is abhorrent morally and legally. That is the major proble with honor killings. If the victim is willing to be killed then I have no problem with the killing but I do question their mental stability.
-
If I were the baker, I'd make them any cake they wanted, and charge them an exorbitant premium. Will the government set prices now? Of course the ingredients would be suspect (nothing really gross, nor harmful), but I guarantee it wouldn't taste good, nor look good once cut open.
So you would charge gay people more? 100% you would run into massive legal trouble.
My response would be that they don’t want me doing it. It will be their celebration and the last thing they want is to look at their cake and remember the bitter argument we are going to have about it. Additionally, because my heart is not in my work, I suspect it will not be a good standard.
I will take the commission if you insist but I will probably outsource it and I make no promises about your satisfaction. You would probably be happier getting someone else to do it.
-
Genitalia are the new cakes and flowers!
https://moonbattery.com/male-lgbt-militants-demand-women-wax-their-genitals/