Ashers gay cake court case couple say they have done nothing wrong

[JakeStarkey]

Explain that to your legislature and see if it agrees concerning PA laws.

Appeal to authority, i.e. answering the question without answering the question.

Appeal to Authority in debate is saying in this case "the legislatures agree with me."

That is not what I said; those are your foolish words.

I am saying if you disagree, take it up with the legislature, for that is where the power lies, so, in your case, you must Appeal to Authority.

You are basically diving out of the "why" of the debate by blindly stating about the "how".

My original statement stands.

No, it does not, and your opinion is worthless.

 

[martybegan]

Explain that to your legislature and see if it agrees concerning PA laws.

Appeal to authority, i.e. answering the question without answering the question.

Appeal to Authority in debate is saying in this case "the legislatures agree with me."

That is not what I said; those are your foolish words.

I am saying if you disagree, take it up with the legislature, for that is where the power lies, so, in your case, you must Appeal to Authority.

You are basically diving out of the "why" of the debate by blindly stating about the "how".

My original statement stands.

No, it does not, and your opinion is worthless.

My opinion is worth far more than your useless government suck-up prater-walling.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. But freedom of action may end when it such an action harms someone else. The legislature and the courts make the final decision on these matters.

If you don't like PA laws in your state (if it has such), work with your legislature.

Not making a cake doesn't harm anyone

 

[JakeStarkey]

My opinion is worth far more than your useless government suck-up prater-walling.

Of course you think that silly thought.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. But freedom of action may end when it such an action harms someone else. The legislature and the courts make the final decision on these matters.

If you don't like PA laws in your state (if it has such), work with your legislature.

Not making a cake doesn't harm anyone

Now if an entire community of bakers decided to not bake a cake for any gay couple for their weddings, THEN you can see some actual harm. But single episodes of this happening when immediately viable and available alternatives can be found does not constitute harm.

 

[martybegan]

My opinion is worth far more than your useless government suck-up prater-walling.

Of course you think that silly though.

Try not to suck any government dick on your way to the parking lot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. But freedom of action may end when it such an action harms someone else. The legislature and the courts make the final decision on these matters.

If you don't like PA laws in your state (if it has such), work with your legislature.

Not making a cake doesn't harm anyone

If that is so, then make it for the customers, yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My opinion is worth far more than your useless government suck-up prater-walling.

Of course you think that silly thought.

Try not to suck any government dick on your way to the parking lot.

Another silly statement by you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. But freedom of action may end when it such an action harms someone else. The legislature and the courts make the final decision on these matters.

If you don't like PA laws in your state (if it has such), work with your legislature.

Not making a cake doesn't harm anyone

Now if an entire community of bakers decided to not bake a cake for any gay couple for their weddings, THEN you can see some actual harm. But single episodes of this happening when immediately viable and available alternatives can be found does not constitute harm.

IMO the services of a bakery are not vital so I have a hard time getting upset because someone can't get a cake

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. But freedom of action may end when it such an action harms someone else. The legislature and the courts make the final decision on these matters.

If you don't like PA laws in your state (if it has such), work with your legislature.

Not making a cake doesn't harm anyone

Now if an entire community of bakers decided to not bake a cake for any gay couple for their weddings, THEN you can see some actual harm. But single episodes of this happening when immediately viable and available alternatives can be found does not constitute harm.

IMO the services of a bakery are not vital so I have a hard time getting upset because someone can't get a cake

I agree, but if the discrimination was systemic, I can see a valid reason for the government to step in.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. But freedom of action may end when it such an action harms someone else. The legislature and the courts make the final decision on these matters.

If you don't like PA laws in your state (if it has such), work with your legislature.

Not making a cake doesn't harm anyone

If that is so, then make it for the customers, yes.

Don't get me wrong I think it's stupid not to make the cake but I also think people have the right to refuse service.

I think it's even more stupid to give your business to a person who doesn't want it

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. But freedom of action may end when it such an action harms someone else. The legislature and the courts make the final decision on these matters.

If you don't like PA laws in your state (if it has such), work with your legislature.

Not making a cake doesn't harm anyone

Now if an entire community of bakers decided to not bake a cake for any gay couple for their weddings, THEN you can see some actual harm. But single episodes of this happening when immediately viable and available alternatives can be found does not constitute harm.

IMO the services of a bakery are not vital so I have a hard time getting upset because someone can't get a cake

I agree, but if the discrimination was systemic, I can see a valid reason for the government to step in.

Right.

But we know that these people could have found a bakery that not only would bake them a cake but would most likely provide better service than someone forced to do it

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. But freedom of action may end when it such an action harms someone else. The legislature and the courts make the final decision on these matters.

If you don't like PA laws in your state (if it has such), work with your legislature.

Not making a cake doesn't harm anyone

Now if an entire community of bakers decided to not bake a cake for any gay couple for their weddings, THEN you can see some actual harm. But single episodes of this happening when immediately viable and available alternatives can be found does not constitute harm.

IMO the services of a bakery are not vital so I have a hard time getting upset because someone can't get a cake

I agree, but if the discrimination was systemic, I can see a valid reason for the government to step in.

Right.

But we know that these people could have found a bakery that not only would bake them a cake but would most likely provide better service than someone forced to do it

Agree 100%.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Hurt feelings is not "harm".

Certainly it is not harm to nearly the degree that it is harm for one to be forced by law to directly participate in or support that which he knows to be immoral.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I agree, but if the discrimination was systemic, I can see a valid reason for the government to step in.

On another note, homosexuality is inherently immoral, and it is never, under any circumstances, an appropriate use of government power to uphold or enforce immorality. It's one thing for government to refrain from acting against immoral behavior, but it is another thing entirely for government to compel others against their will to have any part in it. The latter should never be acceptable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bob is citing himself as self proof, which is nonsense. The LDS Church believed polygamy to be moral, the government thought it was immoral, and crushed the church to force a monogamous commitment by the church.

 

[martybegan]

Bob is citing himself as self proof, which is nonsense. The LDS Church believed polygamy to be moral, the government thought it was immoral, and crushed the church to force a monogamous commitment by the church.

Wrong. the current LDS church has no approval of polygamy at all, that's the realm of the fringe mormons.

 

[martybegan]

I agree, but if the discrimination was systemic, I can see a valid reason for the government to step in.

On another note, homosexuality is inherently immoral, and it is never, under any circumstances, an appropriate use of government power to uphold or enforce immorality. It's one thing for government to refrain from acting against immoral behavior, but it is another thing entirely for government to compel others against their will to have any part in it. The latter should never be acceptable.

The morality of homosexuality is irrelevant, what I care about is the abuse of government power, regardless of who benefits or suffers because of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bob is citing himself as self proof, which is nonsense. The LDS Church believed polygamy to be moral, the government thought it was immoral, and crushed the church to force a monogamous commitment by the church.

Wrong. the current LDS church has no approval of polygamy at all, that's the realm of the fringe mormons.

Just stop your foolishness.

I am talking from the 1860s to after 1900. The government certainly did smash down LDS immorality. That happens to be Bob's faith group.

 

[martybegan]

Bob is citing himself as self proof, which is nonsense. The LDS Church believed polygamy to be moral, the government thought it was immoral, and crushed the church to force a monogamous commitment by the church.

Wrong. the current LDS church has no approval of polygamy at all, that's the realm of the fringe mormons.

Just stop your foolishness.

I am talking from the 1860s to after 1900. The government certainly did smash down LDS immorality. That happens to be Bob's faith group.

You have to go all the way back to the 19th century to make your point?

Cool Story, bro.