Post by: bflynn on April 10, 2016, 12:43:16 PM
Person A and Person B are to do business. Person A is ready to do it but Person B doesn't like some characteristic about Person A. Which of the following is correct?
1) Person B should cancel his show, refuse to service his customers and just stay home and be hailed as a liberal hero?
2) Person B should decline to bake the cake, be vilified as a demon and have their business and reputation ruined?
When is it OK for Person B to say "No, I reject servicing my customers" and when is it not OK? Both Sweet Cakes by Melissa (Oregon baker) and Bruce Springsteen said "I don't like something about my customer(s) so I'm not servicing them". Why is one right and one wrong? All we're asking for is some consistency.
Set laws aside...I'm not talking about law. I need a Leftie to explain to me why one is right and one is wrong. The last remaining leftie at the Pigpen couldn't do it.
Post by: nddons on April 10, 2016, 01:15:30 PM
Post by: Mase on April 10, 2016, 01:36:02 PM
Post by: bflynn on April 10, 2016, 05:42:06 PM
Why is it "OK" for Springsteen to refuse service because he disagreed with his customer's beliefs but not OK for Sweet Cakes by Melissa to refuse to make a cake for a homosexual wedding because they disagreed with their customer's beliefs?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on April 10, 2016, 06:45:21 PM
Springsteen refused to play a concert in North Carolina because he disagreed with a new women's safety law requiring people to use the bathroom of their biological gender. This was in response to a Charlotte city ordinance which was written equally poorly and opened the door for men to legally use a women's restroom.
Why is it "OK" for Springsteen to refuse service because he disagreed with his customer's beliefs but not OK for Sweet Cakes by Melissa to refuse to make a cake for a homosexual wedding because they disagreed with their customer's beliefs?
why?
Because perversion is a protected class.
Morality is not.
Post by: Kristin on April 10, 2016, 09:28:53 PM
Excellent question. I'm guessing that there's a big moral imperative to let dudes into girls bathrooms.
I am guessing that you haven't read the bill. It seems to do rather more than just the bathroom thing. Try here:
www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf
I will say one thing, the NC legislature who decided to cram their views on the cities of NC will be in no moral position to complain the next time the federal government crams something down NC's throat.
One is either for top-down big government; small government and local control; or one has no firm view other than pounding their ideology with whatever hammer comes to hand, i.e. a hypocrite.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2016, 06:01:48 AM
Post by: Little Joe on April 11, 2016, 06:27:46 AM
I am guessing that you haven't read the bill. It seems to do rather more than just the bathroom thing. Try here:It is similar, but different.
www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf
I will say one thing, the NC legislature who decided to cram their views on the cities of NC will be in no moral position to complain the next time the federal government crams something down NC's throat.
One is either for top-down big government; small government and local control; or one has no firm view other than pounding their ideology with whatever hammer comes to hand, i.e. a hypocrite.
The main difference is that the Constitution reserves certain powers for the Federal Government, and by default, everything else is the domain of the State. Since setting bathroom protocol is not assigned to the Feds, it is within the legal realm of the State. Even if I do disagree with the State getting involved.
Perhaps we should ban all multi-person bathrooms and any one can use the next available bathroom. I'm sure a lot of women at sporting events and concerts would like that. Except for their unreasonable expectation of finding the seat down.
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 07:07:17 AM
It is similar, but different.One of my friend is a Mecklenburg County (in which the City if Charlotte resides) Sheriff's Deputy, and is kind of a lefty. He's against this law, but not for why you would think. His entire argument is that there is no law making it a crime for people of a different sex to use the other sex's bathrooms. Seriously? How long would I have gotten away with dropping a load in the women's bathroom every day in my office building when I worked in Charlotte?
The main difference is that the Constitution reserves certain powers for the Federal Government, and by default, everything else is the domain of the State. Since setting bathroom protocol is not assigned to the Feds, it is within the legal realm of the State. Even if I do disagree with the State getting involved.
Perhaps we should ban all multi-person bathrooms and any one can use the next available bathroom. I'm sure a lot of women at sporting events and concerts would like that. Except for their unreasonable expectation of finding the seat down.
Oh, and the guy behind the City of Charlotte passing this bathroom law? He is a convicted sex offender.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/28/surprise.-convicted-sex-offender-behind-charlotte-ncs-boys-girls-bathroom-law/
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2016, 07:50:34 AM
One of my friend is a Mecklenburg County (in which the City if Charlotte resides) Sheriff's Deputy, and is kind of a lefty. He's against this law, but not for why you would think. His entire argument is that there is no law making it a crime for people of a different sex to use the other sex's bathrooms. Seriously? How long would I have gotten away with dropping a load in the women's bathroom every day in my office building when I worked in Charlotte?
Oh, and the guy behind the City of Charlotte passing this bathroom law? He is a convicted sex offender.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/28/surprise.-convicted-sex-offender-behind-charlotte-ncs-boys-girls-bathroom-law/ (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/28/surprise.-convicted-sex-offender-behind-charlotte-ncs-boys-girls-bathroom-law/)
You might have gotten talked to by HR, but not arrested. The law is very poorly written. What about a guy that had a sex change operation. You want her in your bathroom?
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 08:09:49 AM
You might have gotten talked to by HR, but not arrested. The law is very poorly written. What about a guy that had a sex change operation. You want her in your bathroom?I'm less concerned about a chick in the stall next to me (though I think after one sit down experience she/he might be running for his/her life) than I am about a dude with a swinging dick in the women's bathroom, regardless of how he "identifies" himself.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on April 11, 2016, 08:18:59 AM
You might have gotten talked to by HR, but not arrested. The law is very poorly written. What about a guy that had a sex change operation. You want her in your bathroom?
what about the guy?
He has a Y chromosome, he's a guy. No matter how much he mutiliates his body, he's still a guy.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2016, 09:46:41 AM
I'm less concerned about a chick in the stall next to me (though I think after one sit down experience she/he might be running for his/her life) than I am about a dude with a swinging dick in the women's bathroom, regardless of how he "identifies" himself.
Apparently you don't know that women can be worse. They don't like to actually sit on the seat so they hover over it and pee all over the thing. Does your wife not tell you stories?
Post by: Jaybird180 on April 11, 2016, 01:02:08 PM
Apparently you don't know that women can be worse. They don't like to actually sit on the seat so they hover over it and pee all over the thing. Does your wife not tell you stories?I regret reading this thread. :o
Post by: bflynn on April 11, 2016, 07:34:17 PM
But the point of the thread was to get someone from the Left to explain the double standard. Why is Springsteen a hero but Melissa is a villain? Both refused service to their customer based on a disagreement with the customer's beliefs.
Can nobody do it here either?
Post by: Mase on April 11, 2016, 08:09:47 PM
Inconsistency and hypocricy are the purview of liberals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 12, 2016, 05:50:01 AM
Post by: Number7 on April 12, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 09:48:36 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/
More thought police tactics:
http://m.smh.com.au/world/us-woman-jailed-for-insulting-united-arab-emirates-20160411-go3yc6.html
Post by: Lucifer on April 12, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
Insulting the State or its orthodoxy coming to an Attorney General near you.
More thought police tactics:
http://m.smh.com.au/world/us-woman-jailed-for-insulting-united-arab-emirates-20160411-go3yc6.html
Got news for you: A lot of countries around the world do not tolerate foreigners insulting their country of citizens of their country. Some countries will immediately deport foreigners if not jail them for acts of aggression against them, which include derogatory speech.
When abroad keep your mouth shut and watch what you say and who you say it to.
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 10:28:45 AM
Got news for you: A lot of countries around the world do not tolerate foreigners insulting their country of citizens of their country. Some countries will immediately deport foreigners if not jail them for acts of aggression against them, which include derogatory speech.Do you need to be a jag-off even for something that is unrelated to the campaign battle?
When abroad keep your mouth shut and watch what you say and who you say it to.
I'm demonstrating the direction that the country is going with respect to the thought police and leftist ideology.
And by the way it sounds like she wanted to keep her mouth shut, but apparently it's an insult to the state to not talk to men in that jewel of of a country.
Post by: bflynn on April 12, 2016, 12:53:44 PM
I have read the law and the Charlotte ordinance. That's why I initially described them as equally poorly written.
But the point of the thread was to get someone from the Left to explain the double standard. Why is Springsteen a hero but Melissa is a villain? Both refused service to their customer based on a disagreement with the customer's beliefs.
Can nobody do it here either?
Why am I hearing crickets? Are all the Democrats gone or is the problem too impossible for them?
Post by: Lucifer on April 12, 2016, 12:59:39 PM
Do you need to be a jag-off even for something that is unrelated to the campaign battle?
I'm demonstrating the direction that the country is going with respect to the thought police and leftist ideology.
And by the way it sounds like she wanted to keep her mouth shut, but apparently it's an insult to the state to not talk to men in that jewel of of a country.
You're being the jack off. No surprise, you've lead a sheltered life in Wisconsin.
When travelling in other countries it's important to learn and know about culture and foreign laws. Go to Singapore and spit out chewing gum and be prepared to get caned. Go to the ME or most of Asia and insult a local (either verbally or through a gesture) and be prepared to see the local jail or be deported immediately.
Post by: Gary on April 12, 2016, 04:20:09 PM
Why am I hearing crickets? Are all the Democrats gone or is the problem too impossible for them?
Not a Democrat, but OK, I’ll take a shot.
I believe you are trying to compare two events that may have a single high level concept in common, but are very different in context, detail and circumstance.
There is also the issue of our private lives and our public lives, an interrelation, but also different. On the private side, I cannot think of a single governmental restriction on one’s thoughts or beliefs. Whether and how we act on those thoughts and beliefs makes a huge difference. We all can think what we want, believe in what we want and for the most part, say what we think. We haven’t (yet) evolved into having thought police.
On the public side, it is a bit different. There are indeed rules we follow when interacting with everyone else. That is a characteristic of an organized society. To not have rules means anarchy.
In the case of the baker, she decided to not serve a part of the public based on her religious beliefs against homosexuality. While she may personally believe that homosexuals are the spawn of the devil (and she has every right to think so), she did decide to discriminate (not provide a service she was in the business of providing) against a part of the public. Like it or not, it is the law of the land that prohibits discrimination on a whole host of characteristics, including sexual orientation. This was a conscious decision on her part and decisions have consequences. As far as the gay couple, I personally believe they acted like two year olds. They easily could have said “OK - we will find another baker”, and I’m sure they would have. Instead they threw a hissy fit about “rights” and escalated the situation. While they have a point, a poor decision in my mind.
This does then beg the question to you - would you have the same concern had the baker said “I don’t bake for Baptists”??
As far as Springsteen cancelling a concert, in my mind, a very different thing. I’m sure Springsteen has a contract with the promoter for the concert. I’m also sure there is a clause in the contract that allows him to cancel. There may be some financial repercussion, but apparently Springsteen is willing to accept this. Springsteen’s protest was against a public law, not an individual person - VERY different. I do not see where his cancelling a concert was discrimination against anyone. We all can choose our method of protest against a law, Springsteen chose cancelling the concert, his call. He has the ability to choose when and where to perform.
May have missed this, but I didn’t see anyone touting him as a great liberal champion for doing so.
Gary
Post by: Kristin on April 12, 2016, 04:51:17 PM
I have read the law and the Charlotte ordinance. That's why I initially described them as equally poorly written.
But the point of the thread was to get someone from the Left to explain the double standard. Why is Springsteen a hero but Melissa is a villain? Both refused service to their customer based on a disagreement with the customer's beliefs.
Can nobody do it here either?
Very simple! Springsteen isn't discriminating about who comes to his concert. He just chooses not to do business there. The proverbial religious cake-maker has the same choice. He/she can choose not to open a wedding cake shop to the public. No one is forcing someone to go into business. If Springsteen held the concert but would only allow gays to buy tickets, then it would be an apples to apples comparison.
Post by: Kristin on April 12, 2016, 04:54:28 PM
what about the guy?
He has a Y chromosome, he's a guy. No matter how much he mutiliates his body, he's still a guy.
So everyone has to get a chromosome test before they can use a public bathroom? Have you had a chromosome test? Can you prove you re XY.
Post by: Kristin on April 12, 2016, 04:57:10 PM
Got news for you: A lot of countries around the world do not tolerate foreigners insulting their country of citizens of their country. Some countries will immediately deport foreigners if not jail them for acts of aggression against them, which include derogatory speech.
When abroad keep your mouth shut and watch what you say and who you say it to.
So we should treat North Carolina like a separate country? Or Mississippi? That is an interesting thought.
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 05:07:25 PM
I'd like to point out a small but significant difference from your fact pattern on the baker.
Not a Democrat, but OK, I’ll take a shot.
I believe you are trying to compare two events that may have a single high level concept in common, but are very different in context, detail and circumstance.
There is also the issue of our private lives and our public lives, an interrelation, but also different. On the private side, I cannot think of a single governmental restriction on one’s thoughts or beliefs. Whether and how we act on those thoughts and beliefs makes a huge difference. We all can think what we want, believe in what we want and for the most part, say what we think. We haven’t (yet) evolved into having thought police.
On the public side, it is a bit different. There are indeed rules we follow when interacting with everyone else. That is a characteristic of an organized society. To not have rules means anarchy.
In the case of the baker, she decided to not serve a part of the public based on her religious beliefs against homosexuality. While she may personally believe that homosexuals are the spawn of the devil (and she has every right to think so), she did decide to discriminate (not provide a service she was in the business of providing) against a part of the public. Like it or not, it is the law of the land that prohibits discrimination on a whole host of characteristics, including sexual orientation. This was a conscious decision on her part and decisions have consequences. As far as the gay couple, I personally believe they acted like two year olds. They easily could have said “OK - we will find another baker”, and I’m sure they would have. Instead they threw a hissy fit about “rights” and escalated the situation. While they have a point, a poor decision in my mind.
This does then beg the question to you - would you have the same concern had the baker said “I don’t bake for Baptists”??
As far as Springsteen cancelling a concert, in my mind, a very different thing. I’m sure Springsteen has a contract with the promoter for the concert. I’m also sure there is a clause in the contract that allows him to cancel. There may be some financial repercussion, but apparently Springsteen is willing to accept this. Springsteen’s protest was against a public law, not an individual person - VERY different. I do not see where his cancelling a concert was discrimination against anyone. We all can choose our method of protest against a law, Springsteen chose cancelling the concert, his call. He has the ability to choose when and where to perform.
May have missed this, but I didn’t see anyone touting him as a great liberal champion for doing so.
Gary
My recollection is that she didn't have religious beliefs about homosexuals that caused her to not want to provide the service. She served homosexuals all the time, and had no problem with that.
Where she had a problem was with the marriage of two homosexuals, which many faiths, including my Catholic faith, believe is wrong. She did not want to participate in THAT, and not because she had a religious issue with homosexuals.
Post by: Number7 on April 12, 2016, 05:23:09 PM
Every argument about it starts and ends with special preferences are ok for gays, but not anyone else.
It is tiring but true, the left makes up the laws and the courts bow down rather than be thought of as mean.
When a Muslim bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay marriage celebration the silence was deafening because the rules of political correctness put Muslim ahead of gay, or black.
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 05:24:04 PM
Fucking hypocrite.
http://twitchy.com/2016/04/11/bryan-adams-back-from-egypt-concert-cancels-mississippi-show-due-to-discriminatory-law/
I wonder if Bruce Springsteen has played in the Middle East.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on April 12, 2016, 05:49:53 PM
So everyone has to get a chromosome test before they can use a public bathroom? Have you had a chromosome test? Can you prove you re XY.
Do you think someone with a Y chromosome can be a woman?
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 05:59:57 PM
The only measuring stick with regard to the bakers was political correctness, which is rally nothing but communism.Or Christian.
Every argument about it starts and ends with special preferences are ok for gays, but not anyone else.
It is tiring but true, the left makes up the laws and the courts bow down rather than be thought of as mean.
When a Muslim bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay marriage celebration the silence was deafening because the rules of political correctness put Muslim ahead of gay, or black.
Post by: Kristin on April 12, 2016, 08:33:31 PM
Do you think someone with a Y chromosome can be a woman?
Define makes is a woman?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
Post by: bflynn on April 13, 2016, 05:22:34 AM
I believe you are trying to compare two events that may have a single high level concept in common, but are very different in context, detail and circumstance.
So what you're saying is that Democrats don't base their judgement on principles but rather political expediency?
Springsteen isn't discriminating about who comes to his concert. He just chooses not to do business there.
Actually, Springsteen IS discriminating in the form of refusing to do business with the customers in NC. So how is this different than Sweet Cakes by Melissa choosing not to do business with one of her customers? If she chooses not to do business to support homosexual marriage, isn't that her choice?
Why must Melissa be "forced" - or in her case, financially ruined - because she refused to support what she found detestable but Springsteen is called a hero?
Post by: asechrest on April 13, 2016, 08:11:15 AM
Springsteen is boycotting an entity: the state of NC. He is refusing to bring his lucrative business to the state. His "customers" are affected, but not on an individual basis. Instead, every prospective "customer" of his in NC is affected, including those with views that are similar. There is no decision point that makes a judgment about someone as an individual, and then refuses service.
The difference, in my opinion, is this:
- "I refuse to bring my business to a state that I believe has codified discrimination."
- "I refuse to serve this individual customer because she is gay."
I see the point you're trying to make, but I think its failing is that Springsteen isn't refusing customers, he's boycotting a state. If instead he moved forward with the concert, but advised that only those who are gay or transgendered could attend, then we'd have substantial similarity.
Post by: jb1842 on April 13, 2016, 08:13:55 AM
http://thestashed.com/2016/04/11/women-ride-sharing-service-chariot-women-launch-month/
Post by: asechrest on April 13, 2016, 08:16:03 AM
Actually, Springsteen IS discriminating in the form of refusing to do business with the customers in NC.
Please define how it is discrimination. I am having trouble fitting both the law and layman definition to Springsteen's action.
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 08:26:55 AM
The comparison doesn't work very well.Actually, I think bflynn has a very good point. It's not a perfect analogy but it's pretty good.
Springsteen is boycotting an entity: the state of NC. He is refusing to bring his lucrative business to the state. His "customers" are affected, but not on an individual basis. Instead, every prospective "customer" of his in NC is affected, including those with views that are similar. There is no decision point that makes a judgment about someone as an individual, and then refuses service.
The difference, in my opinion, is this:
- "I refuse to bring my business to a state that I believe has codified discrimination."
- "I refuse to serve this individual customer because she is gay."
I see the point you're trying to make, but I think its failing is that Springsteen isn't refusing customers, he's boycotting a state. If instead he moved forward with the concert, but advised that only those who are gay or transgendered could attend, then we'd have substantial similarity.
You also fell for (or intentionally framed) the fallacy about the cake baker. She didn't "refuse to serve this individual customer because she is gay."
She had gay customers, and served gay customers. But her religious beliefs held (as does my Catholic faith) that "marriage" between homosexuals can't be recognized as a marriage before God.
So she was being asked not to turn over a cake off the shelf and hand it to a gay customer on the other side of the counter, but to use her creative efforts to celebrate a marriage between two people of the same sex.
Should a Catholic priest be forced to officiate a marriage between two homosexuals? I think this deserves an honest answer.
The cake maker is not up to the level of officiating a wedding, but her involvement and personal creative effort would have been more intimate and creative than someone, say, renting chairs to the wedding.
Post by: Little Joe on April 13, 2016, 08:41:37 AM
So what you're saying is that Democrats don't base their judgement on principles but rather political expediency?My take is that Democrats base their judgement on "feelings", and feeling can change with the circumstances.
Ds get all up in arms if I don't want to pay for some girls birth control, but have little sympathy for all the women and young girls that get kidnapped, enslaved, sold, tortured, raped and murdered in countries that hate us.
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 08:47:31 AM
My take is that Democrats base their judgement on "feelings", and feeling can change with the circumstances.That hypocrisy is truly stunning, isn't it?
Ds get all up in arms if I don't want to pay for some girls birth control, but have little sympathy for all the women and young girls that get kidnapped, enslaved, sold, tortured, raped and murdered in countries that hate us.
Post by: FastEddieB on April 13, 2016, 10:49:39 AM
Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake in the shape of a swastika?
Post by: Little Joe on April 13, 2016, 10:54:47 AM
Hypothetical:Are Nazis considered a protected class anywhere?
Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake in the shape of a swastika?
But regardless, absolutely not.
And neither should the baker be required to violate his/her religious beliefs either.
Post by: Number7 on April 13, 2016, 10:58:43 AM
Are Nazis considered a protected class anywhere?
But regardless, absolutely not.
And neither should the baker be required to violate his/her religious beliefs either.
My biggest objection to this entire debacle is the existence of protected classes. The idea that homosexuals must be protected from having their feelings hurt, and that blacks must be protected from having to compete head to head for a job, and that Caucasians and Christians are automatically at a disadvantage because they don't deserve to be treated fairly is the kind of idiocy that sprouts the occupy imbeciles, the race pimps, the Muslim, violent, haters, and now the gay mafia.
All citizens are equal. The courts and imbecile liberals have invented these rights for gays, make believe transgenders, racist pigs, and Muslim supporters of terror to remain relevant and in power.
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 10:58:46 AM
Are Nazis considered a protected class anywhere?The New York City Council recently honored executed Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg, so I guess anything is possible.
But regardless, absolutely not.
And neither should the baker be required to violate his/her religious beliefs either.
Post by: pilot_dude on April 13, 2016, 11:25:37 AM
Hypothetical:Or two homosexual men who haven't been circumcised?
Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake in the shape of a swastika?
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2016, 11:28:00 AM
Are Nazis considered a protected class anywhere?What if the people requesting the swastika shaped cake are Hindu, where the National Socialists stole the swastika symbol from.
But regardless, absolutely not.
And neither should the baker be required to violate his/her religious beliefs either.
Post by: Little Joe on April 13, 2016, 12:57:36 PM
What if the people requesting the swastika shaped cake are Hindu, where the National Socialists stole the swastika symbol from.Then it would not be a swastika. But the Jew should still be allowed to refuse.
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2016, 01:05:47 PM
Then it would not be a swastika. But the Jew should still be allowed to refuse.Yes it would still be a swastika, and now it would be a religious symbol and a "protected class"
Post by: Gary on April 13, 2016, 05:30:58 PM
So what you're saying is that Democrats don't base their judgement on principles but rather political expediency?
No, that is not what I'm saying. Can't fathom how you came to that conclusion.. My only mention of Democrats was the statement that I am not one.
Gary
Post by: Gary on April 13, 2016, 06:47:56 PM
Actually, I think bflynn has a very good point. It's not a perfect analogy but it's pretty good.
I'm sure you won't be surprised that we disagree on this. ;D
You also fell for (or intentionally framed) the fallacy about the cake baker. She didn't "refuse to serve this individual customer because she is gay."
She had gay customers, and served gay customers. But her religious beliefs held (as does my Catholic faith) that "marriage" between homosexuals can't be recognized as a marriage before God.
OK, I'm with you so far. The baker had no issues with baking cakes and selling them to homosexuals. Completely understand (and support) her religious belief that a gay marriage cannot be recognized before (her) God.
So she was being asked not to turn over a cake off the shelf and hand it to a gay customer on the other side of the counter, but to use her creative efforts to celebrate a marriage between two people of the same sex.
Somewhere a line was crossed. Help me out here, it has been established that the baker had no issue making and selling cakes to homosexuals, yet if this applies to baking a specific cake, this now intrudes on her belief - is that correct? Did the gay couple somehow request her "approval" or otherwise ask that the baker take part in the celebration? Perhaps this is unique to gay marriages, can't ever remember the baker doing anything except supply baked goods.
Should a Catholic priest be forced to officiate a marriage between two homosexuals? I think this deserves an honest answer.
Can't say, I'm not Catholic, I'll leave that answer to someone more knowledgable.
The cake maker is not up to the level of officiating a wedding, but her involvement and personal creative effort would have been more intimate and creative than someone, say, renting chairs to the wedding.
Hmmm.... so it is the level of effort that determines when discrimination is OK??
We all have a pretty wide margin as to our freedom to think and believe. We do lose some of that freedom when we act on those thoughts and beliefs out there with other people. Guess the question I'm wrestling with is, at what point does a personal belief trump (nullify?) our existing laws and allow us to discriminate against another person.
I do hope you understand this is NOT a personal attack on anyone (including the baker). We all want to live our lives as freely as possible and I suspect that none of us want to suffer discrimination because we have a certain trait that someone else doesn't like.
Gary
Post by: bflynn on April 13, 2016, 07:05:34 PM
Are Nazis considered a protected class anywhere?
Ethnic background?
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 07:16:27 PM
I'm sure you won't be surprised that we disagree on this. ;DIts one thing to sell a widget. It's another to require a person to devote personal, artistic (which is what wedding cakes are, according to my wife who is a baker, though not commercially), creative physical efforts, deliver the cake to the facility, set it up so it comports to the environment of the wedding, etc.
OK, I'm with you so far. The baker had no issues with baking cakes and selling them to homosexuals. Completely understand (and support) her religious belief that a gay marriage cannot be recognized before (her) God.
Somewhere a line was crossed. Help me out here, it has been established that the baker had no issue making and selling cakes to homosexuals, yet if this applies to baking a specific cake, this now intrudes on her belief - is that correct? Did the gay couple somehow request her "approval" or otherwise ask that the baker take part in the celebration? Perhaps this is unique to gay marriages, can't ever remember the baker doing anything except supply baked goods.
Can't say, I'm not Catholic, I'll leave that answer to someone more knowledgable.
Hmmm.... so it is the level of effort that determines when discrimination is OK??
We all have a pretty wide margin as to our freedom to think and believe. We do lose some of that freedom when we act on those thoughts and beliefs out there with other people. Guess the question I'm wrestling with is, at what point does a personal belief trump (nullify?) our existing laws and allow us to discriminate against another person.
I do hope you understand this is NOT a personal attack on anyone (including the baker). We all want to live our lives as freely as possible and I suspect that none of us want to suffer discrimination because we have a certain trait that someone else doesn't like.
Gary
Can you follow that distinction?
And by way I appreciate your response.
Post by: Kristin on April 13, 2016, 10:45:39 PM
Actually, Springsteen IS discriminating in the form of refusing to do business with the customers in NC. So how is this different than Sweet Cakes by Melissa choosing not to do business with one of her customers? If she chooses not to do business to support homosexual marriage, isn't that her choice?
Why must Melissa be "forced" - or in her case, financially ruined - because she refused to support what she found detestable but Springsteen is called a hero?
Springsteen is not refused to serve any particular group of humans based on some characteristic. That is the heart of discrimination is to refuse to provide some benefit to humans based on some characteristic. Residency in a particular state is no one of them. In 'n Out Burgers don't have restaurants in North Carolina and no one considers that discrimination, as an example.
Just as Springsteen is not required to do business in the state of North Carolina neither is Ms. Sweet Cakes.
Post by: Kristin on April 13, 2016, 10:53:59 PM
Its one thing to sell a widget. It's another to require a person to devote personal, artistic (which is what wedding cakes are, according to my wife who is a baker, though not commercially), creative physical efforts, deliver the cake to the facility, set it up so it comports to the environment of the wedding, etc.
I actually agree with that, but for a somewhat different reason. I don't buy the religious angle, but I do think that creating a wedding cake is an artistic expression and to force someone to make a cake for someone that they did not want it, is forced speech which I think runs contrary to the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Post by: nddons on April 14, 2016, 04:56:15 AM
I actually agree with that, but for a somewhat different reason. I don't buy the religious angle, but I do think that creating a wedding cake is an artistic expression and to force someone to make a cake for someone that they did not want it, is forced speech which I think runs contrary to the free speech clause of the First Amendment.Fair enough. I agree.
Post by: Anthony on April 14, 2016, 04:58:00 AM
Post by: nddons on April 14, 2016, 07:09:37 AM
Springsteen is a douche, but I support his right not to play. I never like his music anyway.Agreed. He should boycott ever playing again.
Post by: Number7 on April 14, 2016, 08:56:18 AM
I'm sure you won't be surprised that we disagree on this. ;D
OK, I'm with you so far. The baker had no issues with baking cakes and selling them to homosexuals. Completely understand (and support) her religious belief that a gay marriage cannot be recognized before (her) God.
Somewhere a line was crossed. Help me out here, it has been established that the baker had no issue making and selling cakes to homosexuals, yet if this applies to baking a specific cake, this now intrudes on her belief - is that correct? Did the gay couple somehow request her "approval" or otherwise ask that the baker take part in the celebration? Perhaps this is unique to gay marriages, can't ever remember the baker doing anything except supply baked goods.
Gary
The real issue is that the constitution DOES NOT allow a religious test to determine if your religious convictions are acceptable. The FACT that the baker can show the difference and how on one hand the act is conscription against their religious convictions is the bottom line, except to the lesbians in Oregon and gay mafia, who believe that everyone MUST be FORCED to accept and cater to their particular form of sexual play.
Post by: bflynn on April 14, 2016, 09:33:03 AM
For those on the left - is that the position you want to stand on?
Post by: bflynn on April 14, 2016, 09:42:49 AM
Springsteen is a douche, but I support his right not to play. I never liked his music anyway.
Did you support Melissa's right not to bake?
Post by: asechrest on April 14, 2016, 11:20:03 AM
The logic leads to some ridiculous places. The most absurd that I've heard so far is that IF a service provider must be forced to provide services against their personal objection then a straight prostitute in Nevada could be forced to provide lesbian sex.
For those on the left - is that the position you want to stand on?
That doesn't seem absurd, and we can imagine scenarios like this on both sides.
The argument about where to draw the line is a necessary component of having protections. These hypothetical extremes can be created for each type of protection we provide. The only way to avoid having to draw the line at all is to cease providing protections. Maybe that is an option, but I'm averse to that choice because I know where this country used to be.
And let me just say that the idea of refusing service to someone based off the supposed interpretations of the teachings of a supernatural being that is not known to exist is completely foreign to me. Despite that, I'm fairly sympathetic to a business owner who wants the freedom to choose who to do business with. This is a tough thing.
Post by: bflynn on April 14, 2016, 11:25:03 AM
The logic leads to some ridiculous places. The most absurd that I've heard so far is that IF a service provider must be forced to provide services against their personal objection then a straight prostitute in Nevada could be forced to provide lesbian sex.
For those on the left - is that the position you want to stand on?
That doesn't seem absurd, and we can imagine scenarios like this on both sides.
So your position is that straight people should be forced to have gay sex?
Do you hear yourself?
Post by: asechrest on April 14, 2016, 11:33:37 AM
So your position is that straight people should be forced to have gay sex?
Do you hear yourself?
Two points:
- This is not happening.
- They would not be forced, even if it was happening.
Is your position that we return to allowing discrimination by businesses that hold out to the public?
Post by: Mase on April 14, 2016, 11:33:55 AM
Post by: asechrest on April 14, 2016, 11:34:45 AM
I want that Muslim caterer to do a pork chop dinner for me.
Sorry, special snowflakes aren't yet a protected class. :)
Post by: JeffDG on April 14, 2016, 11:50:09 AM
Is your position that we return to allowing discrimination by businesses that hold out to the public?Yes.
Freedom means that sometimes people do things that we don't like them to do.
In the current age of mass information, such a business would be destroyed by market forces in a very small amount of time.
Post by: pilot_dude on April 14, 2016, 11:55:23 AM
Yes, that has been my consistent position. I've in the past explained about my experience at a KFC in the "hood" who wouldn't serve a privileged white cracker. Did I bitch and moan? No, I just went elsewhere and let the black folks keep their slice of fried chicken heaven.
Is your position that we return to allowing discrimination by businesses that hold out to the public?
Post by: nddons on April 14, 2016, 12:16:52 PM
Two points:It is amazing that we have evolved as a humanity and a nation, having passed Constitutional Amendments and public laws eliminating discrimination on the basis of the physical characteristics of race and gender in our 240 years.
- This is not happening.
- They would not be forced, even if it was happening.
Is your position that we return to allowing discrimination by businesses that hold out to the public?
Now, all of the sudden, 5 Supreme Court justices have created NEW aggrieved and protected classes based upon how people wish to ACT.
As evidenced by the "bathroom crisis", this is a very, very slippery slope.
Post by: Anthony on April 14, 2016, 12:22:35 PM
It is amazing that we have evolved as a humanity and a nation, having passed Constitutional Amendments and public laws eliminating discrimination on the basis of the physical characteristics of race and gender in our 240 years.
Now, all of the sudden, 5 Supreme Court justices have created NEW aggrieved and protected classes based upon how people wish to ACT.
As evidenced by the "bathroom crisis", this is a very, very slippery slope.
That's a great point Stan. So if I want to get special rights, I just have to self identify as a protected class? Wonderful.
Post by: asechrest on April 14, 2016, 12:25:23 PM
Yes.
Freedom means that sometimes people do things that we don't like them to do.
In the current age of mass information, such a business would be destroyed by market forces in a very small amount of time.
Ok. So repeal CRA1964. What do we do about state laws? Any fear that this will encourage pockets of racially pure communities wherein no others can live, work, or play?
Post by: JeffDG on April 14, 2016, 12:28:39 PM
Ok. So repeal CRA1964. What do we do about state laws? Any fear that this will encourage pockets of racially pure communities wherein no others can live, work, or play?Like I said, the way to fight that is with information.
Expose bigots to the world and the marketplace of ideas will give them what they deserve.
Post by: bflynn on April 14, 2016, 12:34:49 PM
Two points:
- This is not happening.
- They would not be forced, even if it was happening.
Is your position that we return to allowing discrimination by businesses that hold out to the public?
You say "would not be forced to"...but how can you claim that? If a baker can be forced to provide objectionable service against her personal preferences, why is a prostitute different?
My position is that individuals cannot be forced into providing service they do not want to provide. You cannot compel them, all you can do it destroy their lives if they don't play your game.
We already know that you cannot compel people. Could you be compelled to attend church services every day? Maybe twice a day? Do you want your government deciding what people must do and what they must not do?
You don't make sense and you don't even know it.
Ok. So repeal CRA1964. What do we do about state laws? Any fear that this will encourage pockets of racially pure communities wherein no others can live, work, or play?
I have no fear of it.
Post by: asechrest on April 14, 2016, 01:14:54 PM
You say "would not be forced to"...but how can you claim that? If a baker can be forced to provide objectionable service against her personal preferences, why is a prostitute different?
My position is that individuals cannot be forced into providing service they do not want to provide. You cannot compel them, all you can do it destroy their lives if they don't play your game.
We already know that you cannot compel people. Could you be compelled to attend church services every day? Maybe twice a day? Do you want your government deciding what people must do and what they must not do?
You don't make sense and you don't even know it.
I have no fear of it.
You don't make sense. You've just said the baker was forced to provide objectionable service (they weren't; they refused to serve), but that people cannot be compelled. Which is it?
I am not impressed with your point, because I've never contended that there aren't downsides to implementing anti-discrimination laws. You've identified a couple of them, namely that it's difficult drawing the line, and comes with contentious objection to controlling who businesses can and cannot serve. I am intrigued by Jeff's point that today's mass information society would prevent reversion to the situation we had when the CRA was fought for and won, thereby eliminating the need for it in the modern world. But I am not as confident as he is that sizeable pockets of hate wouldn't begin to grow around the nation, and I am well aware that my own race may one day be the minority, so this takes deep thought.
[EDIT] - Your comparison to forcing people to go to church is also not apt. The individuals who own the bakery are not forced to appreciate, like, do favors for, give money to, or volunteer for gay people -- as individuals. However, in their business dealings, they are bound by federal and state law. I am confident you can come up with a better comparison, but I thought I'd point this out.
Post by: Little Joe on April 14, 2016, 01:29:13 PM
[EDIT] - Your comparison to forcing people to go to church is also not apt. The individuals who own the bakery are not forced to appreciate, like, do favors for, give money to, or volunteer for gay people -- as individuals. However, in their business dealings, they are bound by federal and state law. I am confident you can come up with a better comparison, but I thought I'd point this out.I'm sorry, but when you are dealing with small businesses, the owners ARE individuals. Opening a business does not forfeit your individuality.
Post by: nddons on April 14, 2016, 01:53:28 PM
I'm sorry, but when you are dealing with small businesses, the owners ARE individuals. Opening a business does not forfeit your individuality.Very true. Forced personal effort under penalty of lawsuit is an insult to the individual, even if the work is done on behalf of a business.
Post by: Mase on April 14, 2016, 02:41:30 PM
Very true. Forced personal effort under penalty of lawsuit is an insult to the individual, even if the work is done on behalf of a business.
We do it every day to Doctors and Nurses in the Emergency Room.
Post by: bflynn on April 14, 2016, 06:12:18 PM
You don't make sense. You've just said the baker was forced to provide objectionable service (they weren't; they refused to serve), but that people cannot be compelled. Which is it?
I am not impressed with your point, because I've never contended that there aren't downsides to implementing anti-discrimination laws. You've identified a couple of them, namely that it's difficult drawing the line, and comes with contentious objection to controlling who businesses can and cannot serve. I am intrigued by Jeff's point that today's mass information society would prevent reversion to the situation we had when the CRA was fought for and won, thereby eliminating the need for it in the modern world. But I am not as confident as he is that sizeable pockets of hate wouldn't begin to grow around the nation, and I am well aware that my own race may one day be the minority, so this takes deep thought.
[EDIT] - Your comparison to forcing people to go to church is also not apt. The individuals who own the bakery are not forced to appreciate, like, do favors for, give money to, or volunteer for gay people -- as individuals. However, in their business dealings, they are bound by federal and state law. I am confident you can come up with a better comparison, but I thought I'd point this out.
I think I put "forced" in quotes or at least intended to. Of course you cannot force someone, you can only punish them.
I'm sure I can come up with something better but it doesn't seem necessary. You understand.
There's a single item that I always come back to - that is individual freedom. You can never morally compel someone to do something, that is slavery. Slaves working in the cotton fields didn't have to work, they could also live in chains and be whipped to death. What's the difference between that and forcing someone to abandon their religion or face financial ruin? They're both wrong. It's wrong to punish someone for disagreeing with you. Saying "sorry, I won't" is not punishment. Saying "you will or I will whip you" is.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 15, 2016, 06:12:27 AM
Post by: Number7 on April 15, 2016, 06:38:43 AM
To take the example that we are living out and make it simple, try this...
A Baptist minister is asked to perform a satanic ritual.
He or she refuses based on religious grounds.
The state of Oregon STEALS every cent the Minister has and threatens jail time, but only because they are the state and do whatever they like these days.
The progressives would argue that this is a ridiculous example because it challenges their orthodoxy with facts that are uncomfortable, and refuse to seriously examine the supposition.
Evil always preachers tolerance until they achieve dominance, then silence ll dissent at the end of a gun.
Evil is in full attack mode right now.
Post by: asechrest on April 15, 2016, 06:56:56 AM
Let's say someone walks into a graphics and sign shop run by a couple of lesbians and says, "I want a dozen banners that say Lesbians will burn in hell" Can the shop refuse to do those?
Yes. (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake)
Post by: asechrest on April 15, 2016, 07:02:18 AM
The argument of the progressive, Marxist left, with regards to the Oregon Bakery and Bruce Springsteen is typical of progressives everywhere. In their minds the only thing that matters is political correctness, which is communism, simply put. When you comparisons that are uncomfortable the progressive Marxist always pretends not to understand to avoid contemplating the consequences of their emotional blathering.
To take the example that we are living out and make it simple, try this...
A Baptist minister is asked to perform a satanic ritual.
He or she refuses based on religious grounds.
The state of Oregon STEALS every cent the Minister has and threatens jail time, but only because they are the state and do whatever they like these days.
The progressives would argue that this is a ridiculous example because it challenges their orthodoxy with facts that are uncomfortable, and refuse to seriously examine the supposition.
Evil always preachers tolerance until they achieve dominance, then silence ll dissent at the end of a gun.
Evil is in full attack mode right now.
I think you've forgotten the First Amendment.
Post by: nddons on April 15, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
The argument of the progressive, Marxist left, with regards to the Oregon Bakery and Bruce Springsteen is typical of progressives everywhere. In their minds the only thing that matters is political correctness, which is communism, simply put. When you comparisons that are uncomfortable the progressive Marxist always pretends not to understand to avoid contemplating the consequences of their emotional blathering.The hypocrisy of the left and it's evil attacks against Christianity are better demonstrated with an even simpler example.
To take the example that we are living out and make it simple, try this...
A Baptist minister is asked to perform a satanic ritual.
He or she refuses based on religious grounds.
The state of Oregon STEALS every cent the Minister has and threatens jail time, but only because they are the state and do whatever they like these days.
The progressives would argue that this is a ridiculous example because it challenges their orthodoxy with facts that are uncomfortable, and refuse to seriously examine the supposition.
Evil always preachers tolerance until they achieve dominance, then silence ll dissent at the end of a gun.
Evil is in full attack mode right now.
Steven Crowder went into Muslim bakeries in Michigan asking them to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. They all refused.
Have you heard any members of the LGBT community threatening to burn them down, or the media standing outside of those bakeries? No.
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2015/04/02/muslim-bakeries-refuse-to-bake-cakes-for-gay-weddings-video-media-silent/
Post by: Kristin on April 15, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The hypocrisy of the left and it's evil attacks against Christianity are better demonstrated with an even simpler example.
Steven Crowder went into Muslim bakeries in Michigan asking them to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. They all refused.
Have you heard any members of the LGBT community threatening to burn them down, or the media standing outside of those bakeries? No.
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2015/04/02/muslim-bakeries-refuse-to-bake-cakes-for-gay-weddings-video-media-silent/
Damn! I actually have to agree, assuming you can stand having a marxist, communist, socialist, liberal, progressive, feminist agree with you. ;D
Post by: Anthony on April 15, 2016, 05:35:57 PM
Damn! I actually have to agree, assuming you can stand having a marxist, communist, socialist, liberal, progressive, feminist agree with you. ;D
Well at least you know what you are. :)
Post by: Kristin on April 15, 2016, 05:44:47 PM
Well at least you know what you are. :)
Y'All have labelled me that we which was back in POA. I would hate to disappoint you.
Post by: nddons on April 15, 2016, 05:52:36 PM
Damn! I actually have to agree, assuming you can stand having a marxist, communist, socialist, liberal, progressive, feminist agree with you. ;D
I'm nothing if not open minded and accepting of all. Let's give it a shot. 😄
Post by: Anthony on April 16, 2016, 04:58:47 AM
Y'All have labelled me that we which was back in POA. I would hate to disappoint you.
But we are all friends here, and accept your delusions. :)
It's all good Kristin. No worries.
Post by: bflynn on April 17, 2016, 08:07:29 PM
Let's say someone walks into a graphics and sign shop run by a couple of lesbians and says, "I want a dozen banners that say Lesbians will burn in hell" Can the shop refuse to do those?
If you want the best example, then a lesbian walks into a brothel in Nevada and demands lesbian sex from a straight prostitute. Good or No Good?
Post by: Dav8or on April 18, 2016, 08:07:10 AM
If you want the best example, then a lesbian walks into a brothel in Nevada and demands lesbian sex from a straight prostitute. Good or No Good?
Just go to Nevada and work this out. You have prostitutes on your mind.
Post by: bflynn on April 18, 2016, 08:08:19 AM
Just go to Nevada and work this out. You have prostitutes on your mind.
Well, I'm not flying right now, so.....
But good? Not good?
Post by: Number7 on April 18, 2016, 09:35:25 AM
Just go to Nevada and work this out. You have prostitutes on your mind.
Of course. Don't like the plain truth so ignore it and make a sarcastic comment to avoid taking on the crux of the matter.
All citizens are entitled to their FAIR SHARE of the Bill of Rights. The idea that this group of lesbians, or that group of cross dressing perverts want to feel special has no legitimate place in the United States constitution.
Post by: Dav8or on April 18, 2016, 05:00:57 PM
Well, I'm not flying right now, so.....
But good? Not good?
Don't know. Never been, but might be fun, who knows? Likely just cost a load of money and be very disappointing. There's local strip clubs for that level of dissatisfaction. I'm way too cheap and pessimistic to actually go to Nevada and try it out. Also for some reason, my wife doesn't want to go, so since we travel together I guess it's out.
Post by: Dav8or on April 18, 2016, 05:03:21 PM
Of course. Don't like the plain truth so ignore it and make a sarcastic comment to avoid taking on the crux of the matter.
All citizens are entitled to their FAIR SHARE of the Bill of Rights. The idea that this group of lesbians, or that group of cross dressing perverts want to feel special has no legitimate place in the United States constitution.
As usual, your post makes little sense based on what I posted. I think it's even more imperative that you go to Nevada. I think it might really help.
Post by: bflynn on April 18, 2016, 07:21:10 PM
Of course. Don't like the plain truth so ignore it and make a sarcastic comment to avoid taking on the crux of the matter.
All citizens are entitled to their FAIR SHARE of the Bill of Rights. The idea that this group of lesbians, or that group of cross dressing perverts want to feel special has no legitimate place in the United States constitution.
As usual, your post makes little sense based on what I posted. I think it's even more imperative that you go to Nevada. I think it might really help.
Actually, it made total sense to me. You made a sarcastic comment to avoid taking on the crux of the matter.
Let me answer my own question since you don't want to. By the logic of the LGBT* community, the prostitute should be forced to serve the lesbian. By their logic, in order to be fair, straight people should be forced to have gay sex. That is where their logic leads and probably to equally ridiculous positions involving Satanist vs Christians.
The Bill of Rights is about the protection of rights, not the granting of them. That makes no sense unless you know that the founders understood rights to exist prior to the implementation of government and recognized that without restraint, government will infringe the rights of their citizens. So they made an agreement that our government would never infringe on rights.
That the LGBT* community wants to feel special is great for them, but they have no place forcing others to agree with them. Rights are about freedom, force and compulsion are forms of slavery. If you support compelling the prostitute to perform lesbian sex for the benefit of "equality" then you have not achieved equality, you have achieved slavery of the prostitute and YOU are the destroyer of rights. It will eventually come back to bite you.
I trust that in demonstrating where the logic leads, you cannot agree with it.
FWIW, I really have no interest in exploring Nevada that way.
Post by: Dav8or on April 18, 2016, 08:53:59 PM
Actually, it made total sense to me. You made a sarcastic comment to avoid taking on the crux of the matter.
Let me answer my own question since you don't want to. By the logic of the LGBT* community, the prostitute should be forced to serve the lesbian. By their logic, in order to be fair, straight people should be forced to have gay sex. That is where their logic leads and probably to equally ridiculous positions involving Satanist vs Christians.
The Bill of Rights is about the protection of rights, not the granting of them. That makes no sense unless you know that the founders understood rights to exist prior to the implementation of government and recognized that without restraint, government will infringe the rights of their citizens. So they made an agreement that our government would never infringe on rights.
That the LGBT* community wants to feel special is great for them, but they have no place forcing others to agree with them. Rights are about freedom, force and compulsion are forms of slavery. If you support compelling the prostitute to perform lesbian sex for the benefit of "equality" then you have not achieved equality, you have achieved slavery of the prostitute and YOU are the destroyer of rights. It will eventually come back to bite you.
I trust that in demonstrating where the logic leads, you cannot agree with it.
FWIW, I really have no interest in exploring Nevada that way.
Good grief! You just can't let the prostitutes and sex go, can you? It's a lame comparison but hey, you want an answer, so I'll give you my opinion. The legal sex workers in Nevada IMO, should very much be prepared to have same sex encounters. They are sex workers! If they entered that profession for fun and recreation, they are sadly uninformed. Of course the millions of illegal prostitutes operating in this country are outside of the law and so are free to accept, or deny any job.
More specifically, the establishments that hire the sex workers in Nevada should ensure that they have same sex alternatives for anyone that walks in the door. If a particular sex worker is not inclined to perform the duties required, the they should then only be assigned hetero jobs, or let go/not hired. It's a business and should be run as such.
Post by: asechrest on April 18, 2016, 09:08:48 PM
Post by: FastEddieB on April 19, 2016, 05:21:54 AM
Prostitutes are neither public accommodations nor obligated to be raped. The comparison is not a good one and the "logic" does not lead us there, anyway.
The analogy may be a stretch, but both bakers and prostitutes offer their services to the public, so in that at least the analogy holds.
Could a legal house of prostitution currently hang a "WHITES ONLY" sign out front? Under current law, I think not. It gets sticky (yuck) when asking if an individual prostitute should have the freedom to pick and choose customers on the basis of race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
These things get complicated when trying to balance the rights of each party against the rights of the other.
Post by: bflynn on April 19, 2016, 06:46:52 AM
Good grief! You just can't let the prostitutes and sex go, can you? It's a lame comparison but hey, you want an answer, so I'll give you my opinion. The legal sex workers in Nevada IMO, should very much be prepared to have same sex encounters. They are sex workers! If they entered that profession for fun and recreation, they are sadly uninformed. Of course the millions of illegal prostitutes operating in this country are outside of the law and so are free to accept, or deny any job.
More specifically, the establishments that hire the sex workers in Nevada should ensure that they have same sex alternatives for anyone that walks in the door. If a particular sex worker is not inclined to perform the duties required, the they should then only be assigned hetero jobs, or let go/not hired. It's a business and should be run as such.
No, I'm not letting it go because no one has admitted where the gay mafia logic takes us
So your position on this is that straight people should be required to have gay sex in the name of equality.
That's the position you want to stand on?
Post by: bflynn on April 19, 2016, 06:50:03 AM
Prostitutes are neither public accommodations nor obligated to be raped. The comparison is not a good one and the "logic" does not lead us there, anyway.
Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type). - See more at: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html#sthash.B58y5h4o.dpuf (http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html#sthash.B58y5h4o.dpuf)
By the interpretations of the Civil Rights Acts, a brothel is a public accommodation.
Post by: bflynn on April 19, 2016, 06:59:34 AM
Could a legal house of prostitution currently hang a "WHITES ONLY" sign out front? Under current law, I think not. It gets sticky (yuck) when asking if an individual prostitute should have the freedom to pick and choose customers on the basis of race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
These things get complicated when trying to balance the rights of each party against the rights of the other.
Could an individual baker pick and choose customers on the basis of X? We've been told no, even when that X violates the baker's personal beliefs and preferences.
BTW, you left out religion. There have been about 5-8 other protected classes added by other legislation over the years.
Post by: nddons on April 19, 2016, 07:20:39 AM
No, I'm not letting it go because no one has admitted where the gay mafia logic takes usFTFY
So your position on this is that straight people should be required to have gay sex in the name of equality.
That's the position you want to LAY on?
Post by: asechrest on April 19, 2016, 07:22:47 AM
The analogy may be a stretch, but both bakers and prostitutes offer their services to the public, so in that at least the analogy holds.
Could a legal house of prostitution currently hang a "WHITES ONLY" sign out front? Under current law, I think not. It gets sticky (yuck) when asking if an individual prostitute should have the freedom to pick and choose customers on the basis of race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
These things get complicated when trying to balance the rights of each party against the rights of the other.
Thanks for the response. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, because I am having difficulty backing this up, but I seem to recall that there is legal precedent to treat personal service differently from sale of goods or rendering of "non-personal" service. The pretext of that precedent follows from 13th Amendment protections against involuntary servitude. I have little doubt that the brothel is a place of public accommodation. But, as you so allude, the actions of the prostitute seems to be squarely in the realm of personal service. I believe that 13th Amendment protections apply. For this and other reasons (forcing the prostitute to be raped is abhorrent), I am finding this analogy to be more than a stretch.
The bakery is a place of public accommodation. It is substantially a business that sells goods. Further, I think we would have difficulty claiming the portion of their business that is a service (baking custom cakes, for example) can be categorized as a "personal service", given that the entire service and resulting transaction can be completed without ever coming face-to-face with the client. Indeed, it could be completed without even talking to the client. So in my opinion this is a fundamentally different thing than the incredibly personal service rendered by a legal prostitute. I don't find that we are taken to this extreme by the "logic" of protection against discrimination.
Still, I am well aware that these things are very -- ahem -- sticky, as you put it. In defense of the baker, it seems that requiring him to transact business with those for whom he or she is unwilling, or to cease business completely, would run up against both 13th and 14th Amendment protections. Said baker has a right to work under the 14th, and offering her the choice to serve against her will under pain of leaving his profession seems close to involuntary servitude in its own right.
The overarching question is whether we are better off without these protections. I am completely confident that we weren't better off without them at a certain point in our history. Whether we would be better off without them now is a deep question.
Post by: Dav8or on April 19, 2016, 07:26:23 AM
No, I'm not letting it go because no one has admitted where the gay mafia logic takes us
So your position on this is that straight people should be required to have gay sex in the name of equality.
That's the position you want to stand on?
Yes. If you don't want your employer to tell you to have sex with a person of the same sex, don't be a sex worker!! Choose a better profession. Why is that so hard for you? Are you now some kind of champion for straight prostitutes rights or something?
I can't believe I'm breaking this down, but what the heck. If you have sex with people for money, it is a job. It is work. It's not about fun and enjoyment and it's not about making babies. If there is a legal, public brothel operating in the US, then yes, they should offer services to both gay and straight patrons as well as black, white, brown, christian, jew and muslim. It's not only their legal obligation, but very much in their financial interests as well. I bet if you were to go Nevada, you would find they already offer this service.
In the hypothetical, if prostitution were legal for individuals to engage in as sole proprietors in the US (to my knowledge this is not legal anywhere in the US) I imagine that the courts would apply whatever standards are in place for people working in the massage, or physical therapy industries. I'm no legal scholar, so I have no idea what legal precedents have been established, but my guess is, once you hang your shingle out for hire to the public, you have to service everybody regardless of personal preference. It's your job.
Post by: nddons on April 19, 2016, 07:27:09 AM
Could an individual baker pick and choose customers on the basis of X? We've been told no, even when that X violates the baker's personal beliefs and preferences.One correction. I think most have been added by the Courts, not the legislatures. Because as you know, the Courts have extra-legislative powers (in their minds) and can and do supersede the will of the people whenever they see fit.
BTW, you left out religion. There have been about 5-8 other protected classes added by other legislation over the years.
Post by: Mase on April 19, 2016, 08:20:39 AM
By the interpretations of the Civil Rights Acts, a brothel is a pubic accommodation.
FTFY
Post by: asechrest on April 19, 2016, 08:32:32 AM
Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type). - See more at: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html#sthash.B58y5h4o.dpuf (http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html#sthash.B58y5h4o.dpuf)
By the interpretations of the Civil Rights Acts, a brothel is a public accommodation.
The personal service of the prostitute is the topic, not the brothel.
Post by: Number7 on April 19, 2016, 10:23:51 AM
As usual, your post makes little sense based on what I posted. I think it's even more imperative that you go to Nevada. I think it might really help.
OF COURSE you are too much the intellectual coward to take that on and have to fall back on stupidity.
Congratulations.
Post by: bflynn on April 19, 2016, 10:24:28 AM
The personal service of the prostitute is the topic, not the brothel.
So you would claim that the employees are not subject to the same rules as their employer? Nope, try again.
You don't have an answer for your contradiction. That should be telling to you.
Post by: bflynn on April 19, 2016, 10:28:40 AM
I can't believe I'm breaking this down, but what the heck. If you have sex with people for money, it is a job. It is work. It's not about fun and enjoyment and it's not about making babies. If there is a legal, public brothel operating in the US, then yes, they should offer services to both gay and straight patrons as well as black, white, brown, christian, jew and muslim. It's not only their legal obligation, but very much in their financial interests as well. I bet if you were to go Nevada, you would find they already offer this service.
But obviously you are breaking this down. You've planted your flag there - that sex workers must be required to have gay sex.
I actually can't believe that you don't recognize how bizarre that position. Did I pick an extreme example? Yes, the most extreme one I could and you're agreeing on compelling people to involuntary homosexual acts.
Post by: Number7 on April 19, 2016, 10:31:11 AM
But obviously you are breaking this down. You've planted your flag there - that sex workers must be required to have gay sex.
I actually can't believe that you don't recognize how bizarre that position. Did I pick an extreme example? Yes, the most extreme one I could and you're agreeing on compelling people to involuntary homosexual acts.
I think Dav8or likes to attack conservatives, but hates to be called out when an example breaks down his code of acceptable beliefs. That might be harsh, but I've not seen him aggressive take on those things that weaken his perceptions of what should be legal to believe, and what should not.
Post by: bflynn on April 19, 2016, 10:38:59 AM
I think Dav8or likes to attack conservatives, but hates to be called out when an example breaks down his code of acceptable beliefs. That might be harsh, but I've not seen him aggressive take on those things that weaken his perceptions of what should be legal to believe, and what should not.
The funny thing is that I'm not conservative. I just think the only two things worse than the Charlotte bathroom ordinance are the HB2 law and then people outside of North Carolina trying to force NC to change.
Post by: Dav8or on April 19, 2016, 10:42:58 AM
But obviously you are breaking this down. You've planted your flag there - that sex workers must be required to have gay sex.
I actually can't believe that you don't recognize how bizarre that position. Did I pick an extreme example? Yes, the most extreme one I could and you're agreeing on compelling people to involuntary homosexual acts.
Have you ever in your life been paid to do a job that you really didn't like doing, but you did it anyhow for the money? I have. That's basically all it is. If you don't like the work, don't take the job. It's that simple. Nobody in your scenario is being forced to have sex, they are volunteering to have sex and in exchange they get paid. Pretty simple.
Post by: asechrest on April 19, 2016, 10:43:36 AM
So you would claim that the employees are not subject to the same rules as their employer? Nope, try again.
It is, of course, the case with many things that employees are not subject to the same rules as their employer. (PS - prostitutes in legal brothels in Nevada are independent contractors.)
You don't have an answer for your contradiction. That should be telling to you.
I spent a decent amount of time on this post (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=704.msg12390#msg12390). Did you read it?
Post by: JeffDG on April 19, 2016, 11:05:05 AM
Have you ever in your life been paid to do a job that you really didn't like doing, but you did it anyhow for the money? I have. That's basically all it is. If you don't like the work, don't take the job. It's that simple. Nobody in your scenario is being forced to have sex, they are volunteering to have sex and in exchange they get paid. Pretty simple.Hey, I've got an idea...
Customer1: I want a cake for my wedding.
Baker: Fantastic, it'll be ready Friday
Customer2: I want a cake for my gay wedding.
Baker: I'm sorry, I don't do wedding cakes anymore
Customer2: You just sold one 5 seconds ago.
Baker: True, but I just decided to quit doing them right after that.
So, voila, no more problem.
Post by: Little Joe on April 19, 2016, 11:21:27 AM
Hey, I've got an idea...So what happens when the next customer in the door wants to buy a $5,0000 wedding cake for a heterosexual marriage?
Customer1: I want a cake for my wedding.
Baker: Fantastic, it'll be ready Friday
Customer2: I want a cake for my gay wedding.
Baker: I'm sorry, I don't do wedding cakes anymore
Customer2: You just sold one 5 seconds ago.
Baker: True, but I just decided to quit doing them right after that.
So, voila, no more problem.
Post by: Kristin on April 19, 2016, 12:43:42 PM
The Bill of Rights is about the protection of rights, not the granting of them. That makes no sense unless you know that the founders understood rights to exist prior to the implementation of government and recognized that without restraint, government will infringe the rights of their citizens. So they made an agreement that our government would never infringe on rights
That is absolutely true and a point that many/most people overlook. However in this case, there is the-rest-of-the-story. That is the 14th Amendment which was all about trying to keep the States from discriminating. So the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does give rights rather than just protect given the context of its passage.
Post by: Kristin on April 19, 2016, 12:45:39 PM
Thanks for the response. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, because I am having difficulty backing this up, but I seem to recall that there is legal precedent to treat personal service differently from sale of goods or rendering of "non-personal" service. The pretext of that precedent follows from 13th Amendment protections against involuntary servitude. I have little doubt that the brothel is a place of public accommodation. But, as you so allude, the actions of the prostitute seems to be squarely in the realm of personal service. I believe that 13th Amendment protections apply. For this and other reasons (forcing the prostitute to be raped is abhorrent), I am finding this analogy to be more than a stretch.
The bakery is a place of public accommodation. It is substantially a business that sells goods. Further, I think we would have difficulty claiming the portion of their business that is a service (baking custom cakes, for example) can be categorized as a "personal service", given that the entire service and resulting transaction can be completed without ever coming face-to-face with the client. Indeed, it could be completed without even talking to the client. So in my opinion this is a fundamentally different thing than the incredibly personal service rendered by a legal prostitute. I don't find that we are taken to this extreme by the "logic" of protection against discrimination.
Still, I am well aware that these things are very -- ahem -- sticky, as you put it. In defense of the baker, it seems that requiring him to transact business with those for whom he or she is unwilling, or to cease business completely, would run up against both 13th and 14th Amendment protections. Said baker has a right to work under the 14th, and offering her the choice to serve against her will under pain of leaving his profession seems close to involuntary servitude in its own right.
The overarching question is whether we are better off without these protections. I am completely confident that we weren't better off without them at a certain point in our history. Whether we would be better off without them now is a deep question.
I believe that you are correct in your legal distinction regarding personal service, however, I don't have a citation off the top of my head and lack the time to dig for it.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your analysis.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on April 19, 2016, 12:56:29 PM
So what happens when the next customer in the door wants to buy a $5,0000 wedding cake for a heterosexual marriage?
A changing market requires nimbleness and a shrewd business acumen.... Who knew the desire to bake cakes would have so many ups and downs.... For $5000 I might renter the market.
Post by: Kristin on April 19, 2016, 01:10:02 PM
A changing market requires nimbleness and a shrewd business acumen.... Who knew the desire to bake cakes would have so many ups and downs.... For $5000 I might renter the market.
Sure! Why not? Black couple walks into the hotel. Sorry, got no rooms. They leave. A white couple comes in and gets a room. There must have been a last second cancellation. That happens all the time. ::)
It has a long tradition in certain parts of the country. Which is, of course, why the Civil Rights Act got passed in the first place. So the $5,000 won't get near covering the damages that the court will award, as we have seen.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on April 19, 2016, 03:50:35 PM
Sure! Why not? Black couple walks into the hotel. Sorry, got no rooms. They leave. A white couple comes in and gets a room. There must have been a last second cancellation. That happens all the time. ::)
It has a long tradition in certain parts of the country. Which is, of course, why the Civil Rights Act got passed in the first place. So the $5,000 won't get near covering the damages that the court will award, as we have seen.
Atta Girl.... Bite the hook, but please don't swallow the my expensive lure.
Do we need to debate the whole sexual preference vs religious beliefs thing again. It's a little like beating a dead horse it is not?
Post by: Kristin on April 19, 2016, 04:56:15 PM
Atta Girl.... Bite the hook, but please don't swallow the my expensive lure.
Do we need to debate the whole sexual preference vs religious beliefs thing again. It's a little like beating a dead horse it is not?
I agree that we don't need to go there. The use of religion as a cover for discrimination is a horse that is on its last breath.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on April 19, 2016, 05:02:36 PM
I agree that we don't need to go there. The use of religion as a cover for discrimination is a horse that is on its last breath.
As is using someone's sexual orientation as a mask for bigotry and religious hatred. The pendulum has swung too far.
BTW how do you feel about sharing restrooms and locker rooms with sexual predators that happen to identify themselves as females?
Post by: Kristin on April 19, 2016, 05:13:11 PM
As is using someone's sexual orientation as a mask for bigotry and religious hatred. The pendulum has swung too far.
Best get used to it. The country has moved left and it will likely take a decade or two to move back towards the center. I am worried that the GOP will lose Congress too. There is no hope of a conservative winning the WH this year, IMO.
Quote
BTW how do you feel about sharing restrooms and locker rooms with sexual predators that happen to identify themselves as females?
When it becomes a real problem I will get real concerned about it.
Post by: Anthony on April 19, 2016, 05:26:52 PM
Best get used to it. The country has moved left and it will likely take a decade or two to move back towards the center. I am worried that the GOP will lose Congress too. There is no hope of a conservative winning the WH this year, IMO.
I don't think the country will ever move back towards the center. Our educational system K-12, and universities has indoctrinated our kids to being socialists, and far left leaning, and more and more illegal immigrants are coming in which will all vote Democrat which is essentially a communist party at this point. We are screwed.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on April 19, 2016, 05:43:57 PM
Best get used to it. The country has moved left and it will likely take a decade or two to move back towards the center. I am worried that the GOP will lose Congress too. There is no hope of a conservative winning the WH this year, IMO.
No, I don't think that is so. If one is paying attention to what is happening in the presidential races, it is very clear the country has had enough of the far-left nonsense. The far left feels very empowered after the last 7 years, but the reality is the divide is far more pronounced than at anytime in the last 50 years. It won't take a decade or two for the divide to result in civil unrest or worse.
When it becomes a real problem I will get real concerned about it.
When it has become a real problem someone will have already been harmed. This issue is pure stupidity. One would have to have an IQ below room temperature to not see what is inevitable. Half the US population is being placed at risk because of the demands of a very, very small minority who demand that everyone accept their ever-changing sexual proclivities.
Post by: Number7 on April 19, 2016, 06:31:18 PM
There are only so many times a con artist can claim that calling Bernie Sanders a Socialist is 'racist' before people turn off the stupidity.
It's a lot like the Jerry Springer fad. It faded because it got so stupid. There are still devotees, but fewer and fewer all the time. Pretty soon even the fringe cable networks will stop carrying it, just like the gay, black, transgendered b.s., will lose 95% of the popular support it ever had, and become a tired, old, worn out, pile of rank cabbage.
Post by: Mase on April 19, 2016, 07:18:22 PM
There are only so many times a con artist can claim that calling Bernie Sanders a Socialist is 'racist' before people turn off the stupidity.
Huh?
Who has said calling him a socialist is racist?
He calls himself a socialist. I guess that makes him a racist.
Post by: Kristin on April 19, 2016, 11:29:32 PM
I don't think the country will ever move back towards the center. Our educational system K-12, and universities has indoctrinated our kids to being socialists, and far left leaning, and more and more illegal immigrants are coming in which will all vote Democrat which is essentially a communist party at this point. We are screwed.
I am more optimistic. We have been more left before, in my lifetime, and have swung right. It is really more about economics than anything else. This move to the left is about the hurt being put on the middle class.
Post by: Kristin on April 19, 2016, 11:37:02 PM
No, I don't think that is so. If one is paying attention to what is happening in the presidential races, it is very clear the country has had enough of the far-left nonsense. The far left feels very empowered after the last 7 years, but the reality is the divide is far more pronounced than at anytime in the last 50 years. It won't take a decade or two for the divide to result in civil unrest or worse.
We have had a bit of civil unrest before and survived it. Obviously, some aspects of conservatism will not come back to the way they are now. Now that the gays are out of the closet, they are not going back in. However, they will run out of things to act up about so will just have to get on with their lives, like the rest of us.
Quote
When it has become a real problem someone will have already been harmed. This issue is pure stupidity. One would have to have an IQ below room temperature to not see what is inevitable. Half the US population is being placed at risk because of the demands of a very, very small minority who demand that everyone accept their ever-changing sexual proclivities.
As I understand it, transgender is not a sexual proclivity but rather an self-identity thing. I am not qualified to say whether it is a real thing or not, I am wager neither are you. I am content to let the thing play out. I am not really expecting men to dress up as women to assault women in the women's restroom. For decades they have done that without bothering to dress like a women so why would then change now. You seem to have some fantasy about the women's restroom being some sort of a safe zone. I don't think too many women are under such a misapprehension.
Post by: Kristin on April 19, 2016, 11:39:15 PM
The need that the gay mob has to force their opinion, their ways, their attitudes, and their accommodation above all else will be their undoing. Civil rights has no place left in America. The gay and black activists have dirtied the topic to the point that majority have stopped listening, and started jeering. Once that train gets going, it will drag the pendulum back towards the right, and probably do as much damage going too far right, after being far too far left.
The best we can hope for is better manners from the LGBT community. If you are hoping that they are going back in the closet so you can pretend they don't exist, I wouldn't recommend that you hold your breath on that.
Post by: Anthony on April 20, 2016, 03:40:31 AM
The best we can hope for is better manners from the LGBT community. If you are hoping that they are going back in the closet so you can pretend they don't exist, I wouldn't recommend that you hold your breath on that.
And due to the media, and Dems, we pass laws, and get into heated argument over people that probably represent less than 1% of the population. Transgenders probably represent .01% of the population. It is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS, and just shows how powerful the agenda driven far left media has become.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on April 20, 2016, 09:25:11 AM
We have had a bit of civil unrest before and survived it. Obviously, some aspects of conservatism will not come back to the way they are now. Now that the gays are out of the closet, they are not going back in. However, they will run out of things to act up about so will just have to get on with their lives, like the rest of us.
As I understand it, transgender is not a sexual proclivity but rather an self-identity thing. I am not qualified to say whether it is a real thing or not, I am wager neither are you. I am content to let the thing play out. I am not really expecting men to dress up as women to assault women in the women's restroom. For decades they have done that without bothering to dress like a women so why would then change now. You seem to have some fantasy about the women's restroom being some sort of a safe zone. I don't think too many women are under such a misapprehension.
We make it easier for perverts/sexual predators to assault women in restrooms designated for "Women", and you see nothing new? Even more interesting is that you are willing to accept more risk not only for yourself, but force acceptance of more risk on others so that something you don't understand can be accommodated...just because a few vocal fringe lunatics have proclaimed transgender "rights" as the new battleground in the immorality war.
I never said, or assumed that restrooms were "safe zones" (whatever that implies), but whatever level of risk existed before this asinine concept surfaced, women will be subjected to a higher level of risk after these rules/laws are implemented. It's truly remarkable to me that basic common sense is being ignored in an ever-evolving quest to normalize that which is not normal. Half of the human population must endure more risk to allow the sexual confusion of a very small minority is elevated to the status of normal and acceptable.
I'm flattered that you think about my fantasies, but I'm sorry to say you missed the mark again with restrooms. ;)
Post by: FastEddieB on April 20, 2016, 09:33:17 AM
And due to the media, and Dems, we pass laws, and get into heated argument over people that probably represent less than 1% of the population. Transgenders probably represent .01% of the population. It is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS, and just shows how powerful the agenda driven far left media has become.
Pray tell, at what percentage do the rights of minorities cross your threshold of being worth of protection?
Post by: nddons on April 20, 2016, 09:42:08 AM
Pray tell, at what percentage do the rights of minorities cross your threshold of being worth of protection?Define "minorities."
Since when have "minorities" included people who think they are what they aren't, yet demand to be treated based solely on who they think they are, and not who they physically are?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on April 20, 2016, 10:02:56 AM
Define "minorities."That is the slippery slope, but we are way past that and are hitting the rocks below.
Since when have "minorities" included people who think they are what they aren't, yet demand to be treated based solely on who they think they are, and not who they physically are?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on April 20, 2016, 10:20:29 AM
Pray tell, at what percentage do the rights of minorities cross your threshold of being worth of protection?
at what point would it be a national crisis?
Post by: FastEddieB on April 20, 2016, 11:48:01 AM
Define "minorities."
Do you actually have no way to look it up on your own?
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on April 20, 2016, 11:58:15 AM
Do you actually have no way to look it up on your own?
Nice dodge.... ::)
Post by: asechrest on April 20, 2016, 12:15:49 PM
at what point would it be a national crisis?
Is a national crisis a prerequisite for protecting minorities?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on April 20, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
Is a national crisis a prerequisite for protecting minorities?
Well, we certainly seem to have a national crisis given all the hyteria regarding "protecting" people who can't figure out what the equipment is for....
Post by: nddons on April 20, 2016, 12:49:25 PM
Do you actually have no way to look it up on your own?Well that's a pleasant response.
I thought it might be clear to most people with my second paragraph that I don't believe, and I think it's a fallacy for ANYONE to believe, that someone who calls themselves "transgender" is in any way, shape, or form a "minority" worthy of a special category for civil rights purposes.
I guess you feel differently. Why?
Post by: FastEddieB on April 20, 2016, 01:04:39 PM
Nice dodge.... ::)
Sorry, but asking me what a minority was just didn't make sense. It's an easily defined word.
Post by: Little Joe on April 20, 2016, 01:26:38 PM
Sorry, but asking me what a minority was just didn't make sense. It's an easily defined word.In a politically correct world where people make up their own definitions, there is no easily defined word. Reference Bill Clinton and the word "is'. The meaning of words evolves more than a liberals constitution.
I'm a white male. Am I a minority?
(hint: white males make up 31% of the American population).
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 02:49:45 PM
And due to the media, and Dems, we pass laws, and get into heated argument over people that probably represent less than 1% of the population. Transgenders probably represent .01% of the population. It is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS, and just shows how powerful the agenda driven far left media has become.
We don't have a percentage threshold where if you are a member of a group representing X percentage of the population that you have reduced rights. While .01% is pretty insignificant, can you imagine trying to set a standard that that.
I think you have to look back to the American's with Disabilities Act for the source of providing extra rights to a small group of folks. This was a bipartisan bill signed by Papa Bush that has had massive unintended consequences and probably equally unfortunate intended consequences. Since we have to design practically every building to accommodate the very small percentage of people in a wheelchair, it is hard to say that accommodations can't be made for the small percentage of transgender folks.
Whether the bathroom thing is a proper accommodation is another issue and I am somewhat skeptical there. I think that someone at least needs to show that they are genuinely transgender to avail themselves of the restroom of their choice if difference from what is on their ID.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 02:55:06 PM
We make it easier for perverts/sexual predators to assault women in restrooms designated for "Women", and you see nothing new? Even more interesting is that you are willing to accept more risk not only for yourself, but force acceptance of more risk on others so that something you don't understand can be accommodated...just because a few vocal fringe lunatics have proclaimed transgender "rights" as the new battleground in the immorality war.
I never said, or assumed that restrooms were "safe zones" (whatever that implies), but whatever level of risk existed before this asinine concept surfaced, women will be subjected to a higher level of risk after these rules/laws are implemented. It's truly remarkable to me that basic common sense is being ignored in an ever-evolving quest to normalize that which is not normal. Half of the human population must endure more risk to allow the sexual confusion of a very small minority is elevated to the status of normal and acceptable.
I'm flattered that you think about my fantasies, but I'm sorry to say you missed the mark again with restrooms. ;)
I see no evidence yet that an unsafe location, i.e. a women's restroom, has been, or will be, rendered notably less safe as a result of these accommodations. If we really wanted safe restrooms they would all be single occupancy and lockable. Whenever I have the option of a single occupancy, whether gender neutral or not, I take advantage of it as it is much safer than a communal one.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 03:01:12 PM
No, I don't think that is so. If one is paying attention to what is happening in the presidential races, it is very clear the country has had enough of the far-left nonsense. The far left feels very empowered after the last 7 years, but the reality is the divide is far more pronounced than at anytime in the last 50 years. It won't take a decade or two for the divide to result in civil unrest or worse.
We must be watching different races. I keep seeing bigger and bigger rallies for Bernie. We can check back with each other in November. My bet is Hillary takes the WH and the Dems take the senate. I am not happy about that, but that is what I think will happen.
Quote
When it has become a real problem someone will have already been harmed. This issue is pure stupidity. One would have to have an IQ below room temperature to not see what is inevitable. Half the US population is being placed at risk because of the demands of a very, very small minority who demand that everyone accept their ever-changing sexual proclivities.
Every change has some risk to someone, somewhere. This seems a phantom risk that is being flogged because few conservatives have don't want to have to deal with LGBT people and think that they should go back in the closet and pretend to be "normal".
I am again reminded of how un-Christian Christians can be.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
Define "minorities."
Since when have "minorities" included people who think they are what they aren't, yet demand to be treated based solely on who they think they are, and not who they physically are?
What happens when the physical is indeterminate?
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 03:09:17 PM
Well that's a pleasant response.
I thought it might be clear to most people with my second paragraph that I don't believe, and I think it's a fallacy for ANYONE to believe, that someone who calls themselves "transgender" is in any way, shape, or form a "minority" worthy of a special category for civil rights purposes.
I guess you feel differently. Why?
I am willing to keep an open mind considering the very large number of LGBT teenagers and transgender teens who commit suicide.
Maybe what is on your head can be real. I certainly wouldn't tell a soldier suffering from PTSD to quit whining and get a job. I doubt you would either. I can't easily say that what is in one person's head is real and another's is not real.
Post by: Mase on April 20, 2016, 03:11:53 PM
Before you go all nuts about this kind of thing maybe this would be elucidating to watch.
60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/switching-teams/)
Post by: nddons on April 20, 2016, 03:32:57 PM
We don't have a percentage threshold where if you are a member of a group representing X percentage of the population that you have reduced rights. While .01% is pretty insignificant, can you imagine trying to set a standard that that.I see no similarity whatsoever.
I think you have to look back to the American's with Disabilities Act for the source of providing extra rights to a small group of folks. This was a bipartisan bill signed by Papa Bush that has had massive unintended consequences and probably equally unfortunate intended consequences. Since we have to design practically every building to accommodate the very small percentage of people in a wheelchair, it is hard to say that accommodations can't be made for the small percentage of transgender folks.
Whether the bathroom thing is a proper accommodation is another issue and I am somewhat skeptical there. I think that someone at least needs to show that they are genuinely transgender to avail themselves of the restroom of their choice if difference from what is on their ID.
The ADA was designed to deal largely with people with physical limitations that prohibit them from being able to use some buildings and facilities. I don't get ADA "treatment" or accommodation simply because I say I hurt my back.
The current demand for accommodation is for people who say they are what they are not, yet demand facilities consistent with who they say they are today, even though they aren't. They can change their "identity" at their whim, and we are not permitted to question if they are what they say they are.
This is such an unnatural and unnecessary controversy. Where did "transgendered" people go to take a piss last year or 5 years ago? It's a controversy because a tiny group of activists wish to mainstream their perversion, demand acceptance by society, and silence anyone who does not accept it.
Post by: nddons on April 20, 2016, 03:38:19 PM
I see no evidence yet that an unsafe location, i.e. a women's restroom, has been, or will be, rendered notably less safe as a result of these accommodations. If we really wanted safe restrooms they would all be single occupancy and lockable. Whenever I have the option of a single occupancy, whether gender neutral or not, I take advantage of it as it is much safer than a communal one.This goes well beyond bathrooms, and extends to locker rooms.
Should a grown man be changing in a public pool locker room when young girls are changing for swim practice, because the law says he can pick and choose the locker room he wants based on how he feels today?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/17/transgender-rule-washington-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 03:58:01 PM
Did anyone see the 60 Minutes episode about the transgender kid on the swim team? Born with girl parts, but a boy inside?
Before you go all nuts about this kind of thing maybe this would be elucidating to watch.
60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/switching-teams/)
What do you have against ignorant, pre-conceived prejudices? Isn't requiring people to be informed discriminating on those who choose to remain ignorant. ;D
Post by: nddons on April 20, 2016, 03:58:02 PM
I am willing to keep an open mind considering the very large number of LGBT teenagers and transgender teens who commit suicide.I wouldn't. But I'm being told I'm a bigot because I don't want a person with a swinging dick showering and changing in a girls locker room. And I'm the bad guy?
Maybe what is on your head can be real. I certainly wouldn't tell a soldier suffering from PTSD to quit whining and get a job. I doubt you would either. I can't easily say that what is in one person's head is real and another's is not real.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 04:06:11 PM
I see no similarity whatsoever.
The ADA was designed to deal largely with people with physical limitations that prohibit them from being able to use some buildings and facilities. I don't get ADA "treatment" or accommodation simply because I say I hurt my back.
I am afraid the law is way more broad than that. You might want to read up on it.
Quote
The current demand for accommodation is for people who say they are what they are not, yet demand facilities consistent with who they say they are today, even though they aren't. They can change their "identity" at their whim, and we are not permitted to question if they are what they say they are.
Since when did you become the world's authority on determining the gender of humans. You need to become a consultant to all the hospitals in your area as they are wasting their money on multi-discipline teams of doctors when a child is born and the delivery doctor is not certain what to call it. You should be able to charge a freaking fortune as you would be replacing numerous high priced doctors.
So what if they find the difference in the brain. If the kid can stand and pee but the brain images say female, are you going by dick or brain? I am guessing I know which. :)
Quote
This is such an unnatural and unnecessary controversy. Where did "transgendered" people go to take a piss last year or 5 years ago? It's a controversy because a tiny group of activists wish to mainstream their perversion, demand acceptance by society, and silence anyone who does not accept it.
I know! Those kids should all just do us a favor and step in front of a semi like that kid in Ohio. I am sure that if is was one of your kids they would do exactly that. How one can be so un-Christian on so little information is mind-boggling and depressing all at the same time.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 04:10:42 PM
I wouldn't. But I'm being told I'm a bigot because I don't want a person with a swinging dick showering and changing in a girls locker room. And I'm the bad guy?
Yes, you are the bad guy because the issue is vastly more complex than you are painting it to be and you refuse any information that might suggest that there was some sort of solution. You reduce the whole issue to one visual image that may be wholly invented.
But since you have reduced it to that one image, I trust you didn't really mean it when you referred to the gender on the birth certificate and you are OK with post-operative transgender persons using the restroom/locker room reasonably associated with the physical structure.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 04:13:30 PM
This goes well beyond bathrooms, and extends to locker rooms.
Should a grown man be changing in a public pool locker room when young girls are changing for swim practice, because the law says he can pick and choose the locker room he wants based on how he feels today?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/17/transgender-rule-washington-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/
That one sounds like someone who is just trying to screw with the system rather than being a threat. Maybe he agrees with you.
I don't think a grown man who has not been treated for the gender issue should be in the women's restroom/locker room.
Do you feel as strongly about a grown woman in the men's locker room?
Post by: Mase on April 20, 2016, 08:03:16 PM
What do you have against ignorant, pre-conceived prejudices? Isn't requiring people to be informed discriminating on those who choose to remain ignorant. ;D
LOL.
Information is liberating. I'm conservative, yep, I admit it, sorry.
But I am also willing to be convinced and hopefully open-minded.
I do not want to see perverts going into ladies bathrooms, and I do not want to see laws that makes that legal. But I also think there may just possibly be some people who need and deserve compassion because their brains just aren't wired the same as most of us. Somewhere here, there must be some middle ground upon which we can compromise.
Watch the 60 Minutes video.
Post by: nddons on April 20, 2016, 09:05:56 PM
I am afraid the law is way more broad than that. You might want to read up on it.
Since when did you become the world's authority on determining the gender of humans. You need to become a consultant to all the hospitals in your area as they are wasting their money on multi-discipline teams of doctors when a child is born and the delivery doctor is not certain what to call it. You should be able to charge a freaking fortune as you would be replacing numerous high priced doctors.
So what if they find the difference in the brain. If the kid can stand and pee but the brain images say female, are you going by dick or brain? I am guessing I know which. :)
I know! Those kids should all just do us a favor and step in front of a semi like that kid in Ohio. I am sure that if is was one of your kids they would do exactly that. How one can be so un-Christian on so little information is mind-boggling and depressing all at the same time.
Being born intersex or a hermaphrodite (both rare phenomenon) is NOT the same as being transgender, and you should know that the law at issue is directed at transgendered persons. You make a weak argument.
Lots of kids have lots of problems. Some are tragic. Do you have some knowledge that if only the kid could pee in the bathroom of his choice he would be with us today? Spare me with the "Think of the children" crap. I sometimes feel that I'm the only one thinking of the children. I'm the one who brought my daughter to her early morning and evening swim practices. I was the one responsible for keeping her safe as a young girl. You would have a man shower in a girls locker room if he "identified" as a female.
And by the way, sanctimony is not a Christian virtue. You should know that since you present yourself as the expert on how Christians should act.
Post by: nddons on April 20, 2016, 09:09:58 PM
Yes, you are the bad guy because the issue is vastly more complex than you are painting it to be and you refuse any information that might suggest that there was some sort of solution. You reduce the whole issue to one visual image that may be wholly invented.If you have a penis, you don't go into the women's bathroom or locker room, whether you had it by birth or had an adadicktome surgery. End of story.
But since you have reduced it to that one image, I trust you didn't really mean it when you referred to the gender on the birth certificate and you are OK with post-operative transgender persons using the restroom/locker room reasonably associated with the physical structure.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 09:11:42 PM
LOL.
Information is liberating. I'm conservative, yep, I admit it, sorry.
But I am also willing to be convinced and hopefully open-minded.
I do not want to see perverts going into ladies bathrooms, and I do not want to see laws that makes that legal. But I also think there may just possibly be some people who need and deserve compassion because their brains just aren't wired the same as most of us. Somewhere here, there must be some middle ground upon which we can compromise.
Watch the 60 Minutes video.
I wasn't directing that at you, but I appreciate the thought. I come from a fairly tolerant part of the Midwest that tends to accept anyone who isn't a burden to the community as a whole, i.e. do you have a job and do you chip in when needed. Still, moving to California was eye-opening. The papers here cover this kind of thing. I admit that after reading about dozens of transgender teens killing themselves or being killed by other kids, I have developed some sympathy.
Post by: nddons on April 20, 2016, 09:17:57 PM
That one sounds like someone who is just trying to screw with the system rather than being a threat. Maybe he agrees with you.
I don't think a grown man who has not been treated for the gender issue should be in the women's restroom/locker room.
Do you feel as strongly about a grown woman in the men's locker room?
Well, that's nice of you, but the NC law makes no such distinction as to whether someone has been "treated for the gender issue."
As for a woman in the men's locker room, I don't feel as strongly about that. There is much less predation of women to men than men to women. Rape is the most vile of crimes, and is almost always attributed to men raping women.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 09:25:03 PM
Being born intersex or a hermaphrodite (both rare phenomenon) is NOT the same as being transgender, and you should know that the law at issue is directed at transgendered persons. You make a weak argument.
It certainly can be if the initial determination of gender is incorrect, which can happen for any number of reasons. The argument is only weak to those who wallow in their ignorance.
Quote
Lots of kids have lots of problems. Some are tragic. Do you have some knowledge that if only the kid could pee in the bathroom of his choice he would be with us today? Spare me with the "Think of the children" crap. I sometimes feel that I'm the only one thinking of the children. I'm the one who brought my daughter to her early morning and evening swim practices. I was the one responsible for keeping her safe as a young girl. You would have a man shower in a girls locker room if he "identified" as a female.
So how many kids need to commit suicide to assuage your comfort factor as a father? According to one study, 50% of transgender teens attempt suicide. Acceptable collateral damage so you can continue with your fantasy that you can actually protect your daughter from all predators, none of whom would likely be transgender.
Quote
And by the way, sanctimony is not a Christian virtue. You should know that since you present yourself as the expert on how Christians should act.How do you know? You don't seem to be practicing Christian virtue much.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 09:30:11 PM
If you have a penis, you don't go into the women's bathroom or locker room, whether you had it by birth or had an adadicktome surgery. End of story.
Well, that is a bit of a compromise. I don't know enough about the whole process, but that might be workable.
I still like the idea of more single occupancy unisex bathrooms. Solves the problem and they are safer even for us how have "F" on their birth certificate.
Post by: Kristin on April 20, 2016, 09:38:49 PM
Well, that's nice of you, but the NC law makes no such distinction as to whether someone has been "treated for the gender issue."
That is one major problem with the law as it would make it illegal for a post-operative person to use the restroom of their now physical gender. That could lead to dicks in the woman's room. Of course, since the 4th Circuit just ruled a similar law unconstitutional in Virginia, the NC law might be a dead letter.
Quote
As for a woman in the men's locker room, I don't feel as strongly about that. There is much less predation of women to men than men to women. Rape is the most vile of crimes, and is almost always attributed to men raping women.
I don't think most women think rape is the most vile. Close, but most of us would rather be raped than murdered if it came down to a choice. Too frequently we got both. That is one reason I am such a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. It can give me a better chance.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on April 21, 2016, 05:30:52 AM
Well, that is a bit of a compromise. I don't know enough about the whole process, but that might be workable.
I still like the idea of more single occupancy unisex bathrooms. Solves the problem and they are safer even for us how have "F" on their birth certificate.
So, the taxpayer is now on the line again to pay for the transformation of all public...and private toilets in the country to single occupancy facilities....to accommodate a very, very, very small segment of the population. This makes the Americans with Disabilities Act look sane by contrast. Nowhere in all of this discussion is there one iota of common sense. The lunatic left fringe continues to win the cultural war because most of the population is unwilling to challenge anything they demand for fear of being called undesirable names. Someone recently said something to the effect of, "The culture degradation war has been won by the far left and now they're going door to door shooting all that opposed them." This is effed up. And the sad part is, when the population has finally had enough the pendulum will swing very hard in the other direction of intolerance, and the idiot brigade won't understand why. The left keeps demanding compromise but allows for none in these matters.
Post by: Anthony on April 21, 2016, 05:33:41 AM
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on April 21, 2016, 06:14:13 AM
The problem is we'd had a few generation of hard left, progressive indoctrination in our schools, and universities. They love this crap.
That's a great point, but someone still has to pay for all of this stupidity. The love affair may falter when it's their turn to pay.
Post by: asechrest on April 21, 2016, 06:27:21 AM
So, the taxpayer is now on the line again to pay for the transformation of all public...and private toilets in the country to single occupancy facilities....to accommodate a very, very, very small segment of the population. This makes the Americans with Disabilities Act look sane by contrast. Nowhere in all of this discussion is there one iota of common sense. The lunatic left fringe continues to win the cultural war because most of the population is unwilling to challenge anything they demand for fear of being called undesirable names. Someone recently said something to the effect of, "The culture degradation war has been won by the far left and now they're going door to door shooting all that opposed them." This is effed up. And the sad part is, when the population has finally had enough the pendulum will swing very hard in the other direction of intolerance, and the idiot brigade won't understand why. The left keeps demanding compromise but allows for none in these matters.
Or, just maybe, the world is progressing as it always has, and overall, things are pretty good.
Post by: nddons on April 21, 2016, 07:00:51 AM
That's a great point, but someone still has to pay for all of this stupidity. The love affair may falter when it's their turn to pay.Which is why the millennials are feelin' the Bern. According to Sanders, the RICH and the CORPORATIONS need to pay their fair share, and fund the free education, free healthcare, free hand jobs, and whatever else he's promising. Because that generation is so unmotivated to believe that they can one day be "rich" (however that term is defined today), or to have delayed gratification (I.e. Save money) for something, then it's ALWAYS someone else picking up the tab. They can't POSSIBLY fathom that they will ever be responsible for paying for these goodies.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on April 21, 2016, 07:30:14 AM
Or, just maybe, the world is progressing as it always has, and overall, things are pretty good.
The world is changing.
"progressing" implies that everything is changing for the better.
Post by: bflynn on April 21, 2016, 08:00:47 AM
The worldisHAS changinged.
"progressing" implies that everything is changing for the better.
FTFY.
The core problem with being a progressive is that it is a selfish and defective philosophy. They actually believe that what they think is better is really better for everyone. They don't recognize differences in preferences because they are so self centered that they cannot do it.
Post by: asechrest on April 21, 2016, 08:14:25 AM
FTFY.
The core problem with being a progressive is that it is a selfish and defective philosophy. They actually believe that what they think is better is really better for everyone. They don't recognize differences in preferences because they are so self centered that they cannot do it.
Hi there. You dropped off the map without responding to this (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=704.msg12422#msg12422).
Post by: bflynn on April 21, 2016, 08:33:32 AM
Hi there. You dropped off the map without responding to this (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=704.msg12422#msg12422).
Yes, I've been dealing with family issues.
I'm not really in a mood right not to pick nits over personal services and what makes something personal. Especially since I don't find things that are much more personal than religious beliefs and anything more offensive than the compulsion to violate them.
Post by: asechrest on April 21, 2016, 08:49:22 AM
Yes, I've been dealing with family issues.
I'm not really in a mood right not to pick nits over personal services and what makes something personal. Especially since I don't find things that are much more personal than religious beliefs and anything more offensive than the compulsion to violate them.
Sorry about your family issues. Your paragraph #2 is a cop-out, though. My response was detailed and in response to your solicitation for comments and your calling me out as having a contradictory view that I didn't understand. I believe it is based on legal precedent, and is not nit picking.
Post by: bflynn on April 21, 2016, 09:14:19 AM
Sorry about your family issues. Your paragraph #2 is a cop-out, though. My response was detailed and in response to your solicitation for comments and your calling me out as having a contradictory view that I didn't understand. I believe it is based on legal precedent, and is not nit picking.
If you want to go the legal law route, then let's explore that. In your view what constitutes "personal"? Why are legal sexual services personal but services compelling violation of religious beliefs are not? I claim both are personal and both ought to be protected since the Constitution legally is a higher law than State law. My response is simple - services compelling the violation of religious beliefs falls under the personal services exclusion. That's why I asked about the most personal service I could come up with, to show that there are boundaries that must not be crossed.
Religious beliefs get to the core of who a person is. We must never forget that it was people fleeing from religious compulsion that made up many of the first settlers of our country. The United States has always been that place where people could believe and worship as they wished consistent with equality. I am not more important than you and you are not more important than me. To argue that one of us must be legally subjugated to the other and put our moral frameworks aside because we engage in business would be comical if the results were not so insulting.
But beyond all this, you actually can never compel someone to violate their religious beliefs. All you can do is to beat them for failing to do so. The slaves in the cotton fields weren't compelled to work, they could have chosen not to and been whipped to death. That's the same principal being applied to religious compulsion and it doesn't make much of a basis for a moral or just Republic.
If I can compel your behavior against your religious will by the threat of extreme punishment then what behavior can I not compel?
Post by: pilot_dude on April 21, 2016, 09:46:15 AM
If that is factual, it seems to be a better use of funds to treat the mentally ill who attempt suicide which will, of course, assist the remaining mentally ill who fall into the roughly 0.03% of the transgendered population. And yes, it is still considered a mental illness by those who are degreed in such knowledge.
So how many kids need to commit suicide to assuage your comfort factor as a father? According to one study, 50% of transgender teens attempt suicide. Acceptable collateral damage so you can continue with your fantasy that you can actually protect your daughter from all predators, none of whom would likely be transgender.
Post by: Number7 on April 21, 2016, 11:48:59 AM
Liberals seem to hate religion, and religious people as a general rule, which is consistent with the communist party agenda, which seeks to replace faith in God, with faith in and adoration of, the state.
Liberals took over education during the sixties and seventies when going to college to become a teacher was another automatic draft deferment. Liberals are using the education system to bully youngsters into believing their progressive crap, and it has moved right into the university system where the snowflakes have been convinced that if they see a chalk mark with Donald Trump on it, they are in 'danger,' and in 'pain.' It is absolute nonsense, spawned by the progressive bullies, and allowed by the rest of the country because we have been beaten down by the labels progressives hurl at us to avoid intelligent discourse.
Post by: Kristin on April 21, 2016, 02:28:24 PM
So, the taxpayer is now on the line again to pay for the transformation of all public...and private toilets in the country to single occupancy facilities....to accommodate a very, very, very small segment of the population. This makes the Americans with Disabilities Act look sane by contrast. Nowhere in all of this discussion is there one iota of common sense. The lunatic left fringe continues to win the cultural war because most of the population is unwilling to challenge anything they demand for fear of being called undesirable names. Someone recently said something to the effect of, "The culture degradation war has been won by the far left and now they're going door to door shooting all that opposed them." This is effed up. And the sad part is, when the population has finally had enough the pendulum will swing very hard in the other direction of intolerance, and the idiot brigade won't understand why. The left keeps demanding compromise but allows for none in these matters.
How big a percentage of the population must a group be before they are eligible for an accommodation? Where do we draw the line?
Post by: Kristin on April 21, 2016, 02:39:33 PM
If I can compel your behavior against your religious will by the threat of extreme punishment then what behavior can I not compel?
You mean if it is against my religion to pay taxes I don't have to? How about when my neighbor blasts some devil music, can I off him?
Or perhaps religious freedom is not absolute after all.
Post by: Kristin on April 21, 2016, 02:43:04 PM
If that is factual, it seems to be a better use of funds to treat the mentally ill who attempt suicide which will, of course, assist the remaining mentally ill who fall into the roughly 0.03% of the transgendered population. And yes, it is still considered a mental illness by those who are degreed in such knowledge.
And if the treatment of that mental illness by those degreed people is for the person to transition to the other gender, then you are good with that?
Post by: bflynn on April 21, 2016, 03:54:52 PM
You mean if it is against my religion to pay taxes I don't have to? How about when my neighbor blasts some devil music, can I off him?
Or perhaps religious freedom is not absolute after all.
Religious freedom is absolute or it does not exist.
You ignored my phrase "consistent with equality". You must pay taxes because you use roads and you want to have policemen and armies to protect our country and we have commonly agreed that we will share the cost of those things for the general welfare of the country.
Try again.
Post by: bflynn on April 21, 2016, 03:56:48 PM
How big a percentage of the population must a group be before they are eligible for an accommodation? Where do we draw the line?
Percentages are irrelevant. Percentages are determined by groups and groups are nothing more than individuals. There are no "group" rights, there are only individual rights. You cannot name a single group right that exists which is not also an individual right.
Post by: Little Joe on April 21, 2016, 04:15:14 PM
Religious freedom is absolute or it does not exist.I disagree. Religious freedom must still abide with the law. "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's" pretty much means pay your taxes and obey the law.
You ignored my phrase "consistent with equality". You must pay taxes because you use roads and you want to have policemen and armies to protect our country and we have commonly agreed that we will share the cost of those things for the general welfare of the country.That is true. And I am glad to see that you don't interpret "general welfare" as meaning transferring wealth to the poor".
Try again.
Post by: nddons on April 21, 2016, 06:31:31 PM
Percentages are irrelevant. Percentages are determined by groups and groups are nothing more than individuals. There are no "group" rights, there are only individual rights. You cannot name a single group right that exists which is not also an individual right.
Exactly. Well said.
Post by: Kristin on April 21, 2016, 06:46:41 PM
Religious freedom is absolute or it does not exist.
You ignored my phrase "consistent with equality". You must pay taxes because you use roads and you want to have policemen and armies to protect our country and we have commonly agreed that we will share the cost of those things for the general welfare of the country.
Try again.
Well, it does not exist in this country by your standards as it is not absolute and it hasn't ever been to my knowledge, but it certainly is not now. We are still struggling with, and probably always will struggle with where to draw the line.
I was reading the other day that children of certain religious sects who do not believe in modern medicine die at a much higher rate than do children of more traditional religious faiths. Does a parent have a right to let their child die because of their faith when medicine can easily save them?
Post by: Kristin on April 21, 2016, 06:49:38 PM
Percentages are irrelevant. Percentages are determined by groups and groups are nothing more than individuals. There are no "group" rights, there are only individual rights. You cannot name a single group right that exists which is not also an individual right.
If percentages are irrelevant, they why did you make it the central point of your argument, which was that this group was too small in numbers to burden the majority?
Post by: bflynn on April 21, 2016, 08:14:16 PM
Well, it does not exist in this country by your standards as it is not absolute and it hasn't ever been to my knowledge, but it certainly is not now. We are still struggling with, and probably always will struggle with where to draw the line.
I was reading the other day that children of certain religious sects who do not believe in modern medicine die at a much higher rate than do children of more traditional religious faiths. Does a parent have a right to let their child die because of their faith when medicine can easily save them?
Saying that we have screwed up in the past is not license to abandon it completely in the future.
try again.
Post by: bflynn on April 21, 2016, 08:18:38 PM
If percentages are irrelevant, they why did you make it the central point of your argument, which was that this group was too small in numbers to burden the majority?
I'm tracking back in my messages but I don't recall every quoting a percentage. My central point recently has been that requiring a person to forgo religious beliefs exceeds the authority of the courts and is in fact can be an impossibility, leaving a court with the sole option of extreme punishment to take vengeance instead of accomplishing the goal. Then I said that percentages and even group identification is irrelevant to rights.
Can you name any group rights which are not individual rights?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on April 21, 2016, 08:53:42 PM
Does a parent have a right to let their child die because of their faith when medicine can easily save them?Well, it's their child, right? Whether inside or outside the womb, it's their child. Decisions regarding the child are theirs to make. If you're going to respect the freedom to abort, what's your hesitation to extend that right to other things once the child is born, like medical treatment (which can also kill), or what they eat, or whether they wear a seat belt, or what have you.
Post by: Kristin on April 21, 2016, 10:29:13 PM
Saying that we have screwed up in the past is not license to abandon it completely in the future.
try again.
Just so you understand that you are advocating an entire change. You can call it correcting a mistake, but it would be introducing a new legal regime.
Of course, when you say "absolute" in reference to preeminence of the religious liberty clause, you are paving the way for the return of human sacrifice. I am guessing you don't really take it that far, but then it isn't absolute any more.
Post by: Kristin on April 21, 2016, 10:36:26 PM
Well, it's their child, right? Whether inside or outside the womb, it's their child. Decisions regarding the child are theirs to make.
Starve them, beat them, sell them, all OK?
Quote
If you're going to respect the freedom to abort, what's your hesitation to extend that right to other things once the child is born, like medical treatment (which can also kill), or what they eat, or whether they wear a seat belt, or what have you.
If you don't see any differences there is no point in my commenting.
Post by: Kristin on April 21, 2016, 10:43:48 PM
I'm tracking back in my messages but I don't recall every quoting a percentage. My central point recently has been that requiring a person to forgo religious beliefs exceeds the authority of the courts and is in fact can be an impossibility, leaving a court with the sole option of extreme punishment to take vengeance instead of accomplishing the goal. Then I said that percentages and even group identification is irrelevant to rights.
Can you name any group rights which are not individual rights?
You jumped into a response I was making to Kansas City Joe.
It depends on what you mean by "right". I have a somewhat more narrow view of what a right is. But if you are talking about entitlements provided by government, which are often termed as a "right", then I would say that the right is individual but is triggered by being a member of a defined group.
Post by: pilot_dude on April 22, 2016, 07:04:42 AM
And if the treatment of that mental illness by those degreed people is for the person to transition to the other gender, then you are good with that?If it prevents them from offing themselves, yes. However, no mental help professional worth their weight will assist a person to be transgendered no more than they will help a person be heterosexual. The purpose of the mental healthcare field is to help the individual find solutions to their problem, not to propose they do A or B.
I base this conclusion on us being foster parents to mentally challenged teenagers and the countless hours of meetings trying to get these kids on some sort of self efficient path. So, my interaction may not be universal.
Post by: bflynn on April 22, 2016, 08:09:55 AM
Just so you understand that you are advocating an entire change. You can call it correcting a mistake, but it would be introducing a new legal regime.
Of course, when you say "absolute" in reference to preeminence of the religious liberty clause, you are paving the way for the return of human sacrifice. I am guessing you don't really take it that far, but then it isn't absolute any more.
If we start deciding what religious beliefs are correct and which are not then there is no religious liberty. Tell me a religious belief which respects the equality of being human but that you think should be banned.
By human sacrifice I presume you mean involuntary human sacrifice, which does not respect equality. You cannot sacrifice someone else's life for the same reason you cannot murder, because it is their life and it is not yours to take. I will never approve of human sacrifice but if two people voluntarily get together and agree to practice it then can you interfere with what two consenting adults want to do? I'd wonder about the victim's ability to consent, is there a mental deficiency or a lack of understanding on their part? I'd need to be convinced before I'd agree that it was consensual.
And yes, I do advocate fixing mistakes of the past but thjat is a secondary priority to not making more mistakes today.
Post by: bflynn on April 22, 2016, 08:14:20 AM
You jumped into a response I was making to Kansas City Joe.
It depends on what you mean by "right". I have a somewhat more narrow view of what a right is. But if you are talking about entitlements provided by government, which are often termed as a "right", then I would say that the right is individual but is triggered by being a member of a defined group.
There are no rights which come from the government. If you think there are, be specific.
I'm looking for a specific right. If you believe in the equality of all people then I'd bet that you cannot name a single group right that is not really an individual right one group having a right that others don't have results in inequality.
Post by: Kristin on April 22, 2016, 02:20:50 PM
If it prevents them from offing themselves, yes. However, no mental help professional worth their weight will assist a person to be transgendered no more than they will help a person be heterosexual. The purpose of the mental healthcare field is to help the individual find solutions to their problem, not to propose they do A or B.
I base this conclusion on us being foster parents to mentally challenged teenagers and the countless hours of meetings trying to get these kids on some sort of self efficient path. So, my interaction may not be universal.
I agree. Reread what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote if you want to comment on what I am saying. If you just wanted to make this comment out of the blue, then that is fine. I agree. Apparently treatment for transgendered individuals must, at some point, involve a transition to the other gender. I assume that this happens after making a diagnosis.
I don't know how these things work for gender issues, but like you, I have some exposure to the mental health system. My brother is autistic so the family has been dealing with that for nearly six decades.
Post by: pilot_dude on April 22, 2016, 02:27:02 PM
I agree. Reread what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote if you want to comment on what I am saying. If you just wanted to make this comment out of the blue, then that is fine. I agree. Apparently treatment for transgendered individuals must, at some point, involve a transition to the other gender. I assume that this happens after making a diagnosis.I reread what you wrote two times and stand by my response.
I don't know how these things work for gender issues, but like you, I have some exposure to the mental health system. My brother is autistic so the family has been dealing with that for nearly six decades.
My heartfelt empathy for your family situation.
Post by: Kristin on April 22, 2016, 02:31:39 PM
If we start deciding what religious beliefs are correct and which are not then there is no religious liberty. Tell me a religious belief which respects the equality of being human but that you think should be banned.
Here is your logical fallacy right there. You are limiting the discussion to religions that "respect the equality of being human", yet your say that if we question the legitimacy of beliefs, as you have just done, then there is no religious freedom.
But to answer the point, I would say that we have numerous religions that do not respect the equality of being human. Islam is a good example as women are clearly not extended equal rights or status.
Quote
By human sacrifice I presume you mean involuntary human sacrifice, which does not respect equality. You cannot sacrifice someone else's life for the same reason you cannot murder, because it is their life and it is not yours to take. I will never approve of human sacrifice but if two people voluntarily get together and agree to practice it then can you interfere with what two consenting adults want to do? I'd wonder about the victim's ability to consent, is there a mental deficiency or a lack of understanding on their part? I'd need to be convinced before I'd agree that it was consensual.
See here again you contradict yourself. You want to be the gatekeeper of whether a religion is one that respects equality. But absolute freedom means the government cannot inquire into whether the religion respects equality. If it does, then the religious freedom is not absolute. You can't have it both ways.
Quote
And yes, I do advocate fixing mistakes of the past but that is a secondary priority to not making more mistakes today.
Freedom of religion never has been absolute and never will be. If it isn't the government, it is a different religion fighting with it.
Post by: Kristin on April 22, 2016, 02:37:42 PM
There are no rights which come from the government. If you think there are, be specific.
I'm looking for a specific right. If you believe in the equality of all people then I'd bet that you cannot name a single group right that is not really an individual right one group having a right that others don't have results in inequality.
It depends on how one defines "rights". I agree with your definition, but a vast amount of the voters believe that they have a right to food, clothing, shelter, etc, paid for by someone else.
If you consider government mandates and entitlements to constitute a right, the a person who has been given a designation by a doctor has a right to part near the entrance to a public establishment based upon that person's supposed membership in a group who are allegedly disabled in some form or fashion.