I find it very disturbing

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why should anyone have to move because of intolerance?
What if you are raised in that community? What if your family depends on you for support?

Ya mean like these 'ones'?

They were being forced to move, because one group of people could no longer tolerate the other group.

Doesn't look like the US does it?

No, but it does look like 'ones'... and it definitely is 'ones having to move due to intolerance', and specifically be the intolerance intrinsic to Islam, which is one of the 'religious' arms of the Ideological Left.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Hate to inform you...but they are not covered under our Constitutional protections......Homosexuals are

Well I hate to tell you, but once you idiots kick off the looming civil war, you will not be 'covered' by the Constitutional protections.

(Ya see that's sorta the downside to war. Once you people ignite it, you're going to which you'd been a lot more willing to shut the fuck up and NOT been to eager to fundamentally change the United States.(

 

[rightwinger]

Why should anyone have to move because of intolerance?
What if you are raised in that community? What if your family depends on you for support?

Ya mean like these 'ones'?

They were being forced to move, because one group of people could no longer tolerate the other group.

Doesn't look like the US does it?

No, but it does look like 'ones'... and it definitely is 'ones having to move due to intolerance', and specifically be the intolerance intrinsic to Islam, which is one of the 'religious' arms of the Ideological Left.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Hate to inform you...but they are not covered under our Constitutional protections......Homosexuals are

Well I hate to tell you, but once you idiots kick off the looming civil war, you will not be 'covered' by the Constitutional protections.

(Ya see that's sorta the downside to war. Once you people ignite it, you're going to which you'd been a lot more willing to shut the fuck up and NOT been to eager to fundamentally change the United States.(

Complete nonsense unrelated to the thread

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ya mean like these 'ones'?

They were being forced to move, because one group of people could no longer tolerate the other group.

Doesn't look like the US does it?

No, but it does look like 'ones'... and it definitely is 'ones having to move due to intolerance', and specifically be the intolerance intrinsic to Islam, which is one of the 'religious' arms of the Ideological Left.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Hate to inform you...but they are not covered under our Constitutional protections......Homosexuals are

Well I hate to tell you, but once you idiots kick off the looming civil war, you will not be 'covered' by the Constitutional protections.

(Ya see that's sorta the downside to war. Once you people ignite it, you're going to which you'd been a lot more willing to shut the fuck up and NOT been to eager to fundamentally change the United States.(

Complete nonsense unrelated to the thread

Well, it speaks directly to your post, refutes your facts and reasoning... You can't compete with the reasoning, so you irrationally claim that such is irrelevant.

(Reader; what you see in the position of the above cited contributor, is what is known as 'deflection', it is a demonstration of turning from, thus yielding from the standing points, inducing the contributor's concession TO the standing points... through the offering of irrelevance, which claims to contest irrelevance.)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't know that it is. A backed up toilet is a health hazard. Public health is a valid interest of the state.

See, now we're getting in more special carve outs. Only some people in some businesses get to discriminate?

Yes. Where is the line? Let's say I am a doctor. I walk along the street and there is a man dressed in one of those spiffy sheets with the eye holes. The man clutches his chest suddenly and falls to the ground. Can I just step over him because I don't like his fashion sense?

The law varies on that from state to state. The problem comes that if the doctor abides by a good samaritan law and tends to the white sheeted guy and something goes wrong, can the doctor be sued? Or anybody else who assists the person? If so, then there should be no requirement that any person be required to assume that risk.

While I never completely trust Wiki to get it exactly right, there is a really good discussion on this in the Common Law section here:
Duty to rescue - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is that if we are each at liberty to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. should the government be given authority to require one person to be in servitude to another person in any way? The exception would be in social contract that would require a person to be non discriminatory in their business or in a legal marriage contract that assumes certain responsibilities of husband and wife to each other and to their children. The reasoning is that those entering into business or marriage willingly assume specific responsibilities by virtue of their license/contract.

So then we get to the sticky wicket of how much must be required of a person in order to be in business? And does that include forcing the person to set aside all his religious, moral, and ethical convictions?

So I solve that problem with my conviction that yes, the person should serve even the person he abhors in his own place of business. But he should not be required to provide service at an EVENT which goes against his religious, moral, or ethical convictions. To me that is a perfectly reasonable compromise to achieve equal protection under the law.

In terms of the requirement of servitude, I think the answer is yes. However, it again becomes a matter how much. Can the government draft people into the armed forces? I can tell you the answer to that is yes, I served with quite a lot of them. Can you be compelled to testify in court? Yes. You agree you can be compelled to serve within the confines of the business site. So we come to that question again of where the line is. I'm not convinced where the physical location of the service matters, though I really do see your point. But a building is not an event. If selling flowers is not participating, I don't see how delivering flowers is. Let's assume we are talking about the hall rented for the ceremony. Can the owner of the hall refuse to rent it out for the same reason, despite the fact we are now talking about the business site?

For me, the question first is does the law violate the Constitution. I don't see that it does. Second, does it violate the State Constitution. In this case, again no. So whether I agree with the law or not, it is within the purview of the state to initiate and enforce the law. However, I am on the fence as to whether or not this particular application of the law is Constitutional. I don't think the florist was discriminating because they were gay. She was discriminating because she believes the ceremony is wrong.

When I argue what 'should's' and 'ought's' form my convictions and belief system, it really doesn't matter to me what the law says or what the court says. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law and court rulings.

I don't see service in the military or court testimony or jury duty as necessarily involuntary servitude however.

For instance yes, the Congress and Presidents and courts have agreed with a mandatory draft into the military. If every man and woman who physically qualifies for the service is subject to that draft, and it is done via a blind lottery system, that one is borderline for me. It is the constitutional mandate for the federal government to provide the common defense and those drafted are doing that on their own behalf as well as everybody else, so I think that one we have to think about. I do much prefer an all volunteer military as much as possible.

Being subpoenaed for court testimony or jury duty is another gray area--if our testimony is necessary to establish guilt or innocence or right or wrong, is this really servitude to another? Or an impartial and necessary system of achieving justice--one of those things we do in order to be citizens of a country just as we all should proportionately share in the NECESSARY funding of NECESSARY functions of government. Such things that benefit no privileged person or no special interest group but benefit all?

But again if we decide mandatory court testimony is a reasonable requirement for all citizens, people should be at least compensated for any financial costs or loss resulting from that testimony. And if mandatory jury duty is a necessary condition of citizenship, it must always be on a blind lottery system that ensures equal opportunity for all to participate.

Forcing a baker or florist or photographer or whatever to provide service at an event that is ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable to that business owner serves no uniform national interest and, IMO, violates every principle of what liberty is.

I understand your position on the law, but I'm not sure it is relevant. I personally think drug laws are morally and ethically wrong, as well as extraordinarily destructive to the country. But that does not mean I don't consider those laws to be valid. IOW, while wrong they do fall within the mission of the state. Perfection is simply not something we are going to achieve, especially since it is unlikely we will all agree as to what perfection is.

The point I was making is that it is not a yes/no issue. When you asked if the government should be given the authority to require one person to be in servitude to another, I indicated it could and gave examples as to how. You agreed with those examples. So it really isn't a matter of if, but of how much. So long as we operate under the rule if "it all depends", we are going to face this issue.

What is important is that the debate continue and be very public.

 

[PratchettFan]

The government has always told us how to live. I don't see the movement.

The history is debatable, I suppose. You can definitely find flagrant violations of our rights in our nation's history. But there is a distinct difference between government focused on protecting our freedom to live as we wish, and one that tries to dictate how we should live.

Certainly you can find that. If human beings treated each other with tolerance and respect naturally, we wouldn't need laws at all. The government is people. But I say again, the government has always dictated how we should live. Saying you can't rob or murder is dictating how you should live. Saying you can't raise chickens in a residential neighborhood is dictating how you should live. All criminal law and most of civil law falls under this category. Public health laws do as well. Pretty much the point of government is to do this. It isn't a matter of if it should, but the extent to which it should.

There's a distinct, important difference between laws that prohibit acts that violate the rights of others, and laws that mandate conformity in the name of convenience, or the "interests of the state".

I would agree it is an important difference, but I would differ that it is anything akin to "distinct". The "interests of the state" is, in fact, the interests of the citizens of the state. Not allowing you to have livestock is just taking into account that the neighbors also have rights, not simply requiring conformity.

The distinction is in the purpose. Many laws today don't even pretend to be about protecting our rights, but are simply using the power of government to achieve some arbitrary social "good" that currently has majority support.

Not all laws have to be about protecting rights, although I think I can make an argument they ultimately do. Rights only exist within a stable society. They are not god given nor inalienable. They exist because we agree they exist and for no other reason. So a law dealing with sewer maintenance ultimately supports your rights.

 

[dblack]

The history is debatable, I suppose. You can definitely find flagrant violations of our rights in our nation's history. But there is a distinct difference between government focused on protecting our freedom to live as we wish, and one that tries to dictate how we should live.

Certainly you can find that. If human beings treated each other with tolerance and respect naturally, we wouldn't need laws at all. The government is people. But I say again, the government has always dictated how we should live. Saying you can't rob or murder is dictating how you should live. Saying you can't raise chickens in a residential neighborhood is dictating how you should live. All criminal law and most of civil law falls under this category. Public health laws do as well. Pretty much the point of government is to do this. It isn't a matter of if it should, but the extent to which it should.

There's a distinct, important difference between laws that prohibit acts that violate the rights of others, and laws that mandate conformity in the name of convenience, or the "interests of the state".

I would agree it is an important difference, but I would differ that it is anything akin to "distinct". The "interests of the state" is, in fact, the interests of the citizens of the state. Not allowing you to have livestock is just taking into account that the neighbors also have rights, not simply requiring conformity.

The distinction is in the purpose. Many laws today don't even pretend to be about protecting our rights, but are simply using the power of government to achieve some arbitrary social "good" that currently has majority support.

Not all laws have to be about protecting rights, although I think I can make an argument they ultimately do. Rights only exist within a stable society. They are not god given nor inalienable. They exist because we agree they exist and for no other reason. So a law dealing with sewer maintenance ultimately supports your rights.

Unfortunately, this is where your misunderstanding of the meaning and relevance of "inalienable rights" undermines our ability to communicate.

 

[Foxfyre]

See, now we're getting in more special carve outs. Only some people in some businesses get to discriminate?

Yes. Where is the line? Let's say I am a doctor. I walk along the street and there is a man dressed in one of those spiffy sheets with the eye holes. The man clutches his chest suddenly and falls to the ground. Can I just step over him because I don't like his fashion sense?

The law varies on that from state to state. The problem comes that if the doctor abides by a good samaritan law and tends to the white sheeted guy and something goes wrong, can the doctor be sued? Or anybody else who assists the person? If so, then there should be no requirement that any person be required to assume that risk.

While I never completely trust Wiki to get it exactly right, there is a really good discussion on this in the Common Law section here:
Duty to rescue - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is that if we are each at liberty to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. should the government be given authority to require one person to be in servitude to another person in any way? The exception would be in social contract that would require a person to be non discriminatory in their business or in a legal marriage contract that assumes certain responsibilities of husband and wife to each other and to their children. The reasoning is that those entering into business or marriage willingly assume specific responsibilities by virtue of their license/contract.

So then we get to the sticky wicket of how much must be required of a person in order to be in business? And does that include forcing the person to set aside all his religious, moral, and ethical convictions?

So I solve that problem with my conviction that yes, the person should serve even the person he abhors in his own place of business. But he should not be required to provide service at an EVENT which goes against his religious, moral, or ethical convictions. To me that is a perfectly reasonable compromise to achieve equal protection under the law.

In terms of the requirement of servitude, I think the answer is yes. However, it again becomes a matter how much. Can the government draft people into the armed forces? I can tell you the answer to that is yes, I served with quite a lot of them. Can you be compelled to testify in court? Yes. You agree you can be compelled to serve within the confines of the business site. So we come to that question again of where the line is. I'm not convinced where the physical location of the service matters, though I really do see your point. But a building is not an event. If selling flowers is not participating, I don't see how delivering flowers is. Let's assume we are talking about the hall rented for the ceremony. Can the owner of the hall refuse to rent it out for the same reason, despite the fact we are now talking about the business site?

For me, the question first is does the law violate the Constitution. I don't see that it does. Second, does it violate the State Constitution. In this case, again no. So whether I agree with the law or not, it is within the purview of the state to initiate and enforce the law. However, I am on the fence as to whether or not this particular application of the law is Constitutional. I don't think the florist was discriminating because they were gay. She was discriminating because she believes the ceremony is wrong.

When I argue what 'should's' and 'ought's' form my convictions and belief system, it really doesn't matter to me what the law says or what the court says. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law and court rulings.

I don't see service in the military or court testimony or jury duty as necessarily involuntary servitude however.

For instance yes, the Congress and Presidents and courts have agreed with a mandatory draft into the military. If every man and woman who physically qualifies for the service is subject to that draft, and it is done via a blind lottery system, that one is borderline for me. It is the constitutional mandate for the federal government to provide the common defense and those drafted are doing that on their own behalf as well as everybody else, so I think that one we have to think about. I do much prefer an all volunteer military as much as possible.

Being subpoenaed for court testimony or jury duty is another gray area--if our testimony is necessary to establish guilt or innocence or right or wrong, is this really servitude to another? Or an impartial and necessary system of achieving justice--one of those things we do in order to be citizens of a country just as we all should proportionately share in the NECESSARY funding of NECESSARY functions of government. Such things that benefit no privileged person or no special interest group but benefit all?

But again if we decide mandatory court testimony is a reasonable requirement for all citizens, people should be at least compensated for any financial costs or loss resulting from that testimony. And if mandatory jury duty is a necessary condition of citizenship, it must always be on a blind lottery system that ensures equal opportunity for all to participate.

Forcing a baker or florist or photographer or whatever to provide service at an event that is ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable to that business owner serves no uniform national interest and, IMO, violates every principle of what liberty is.

I understand your position on the law, but I'm not sure it is relevant. I personally think drug laws are morally and ethically wrong, as well as extraordinarily destructive to the country. But that does not mean I don't consider those laws to be valid. IOW, while wrong they do fall within the mission of the state. Perfection is simply not something we are going to achieve, especially since it is unlikely we will all agree as to what perfection is.

The point I was making is that it is not a yes/no issue. When you asked if the government should be given the authority to require one person to be in servitude to another, I indicated it could and gave examples as to how. You agreed with those examples. So it really isn't a matter of if, but of how much. So long as we operate under the rule if "it all depends", we are going to face this issue.

What is important is that the debate continue and be very public.

Weeeeeeellll....not quite. I didn't agree that the military draft or testifying in court or jury duty is involuntary servitude to another. I intended to classify such as necessary requirements for citizens in order for the government to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Such benefits us all including the person serving in the military or called as a witness or a juror. There is a huge difference between this and requiring a person to give up his/her time, labor, and resources for the benefit of another person or persons.

And I also did not mean to imply that I can legitimately disobey a law just because I don't like it. But when a law is unjust and when it violates every principle the Constitution is based on, then all of us should rise up in protest of that law and demand that it be overturned. And we are perfectly within our rights to demand arbitration of whether an oppressive law violates a higher principle protected by the Constitution and therefore can be disobeyed.

 

[PratchettFan]

Certainly you can find that. If human beings treated each other with tolerance and respect naturally, we wouldn't need laws at all. The government is people. But I say again, the government has always dictated how we should live. Saying you can't rob or murder is dictating how you should live. Saying you can't raise chickens in a residential neighborhood is dictating how you should live. All criminal law and most of civil law falls under this category. Public health laws do as well. Pretty much the point of government is to do this. It isn't a matter of if it should, but the extent to which it should.

There's a distinct, important difference between laws that prohibit acts that violate the rights of others, and laws that mandate conformity in the name of convenience, or the "interests of the state".

I would agree it is an important difference, but I would differ that it is anything akin to "distinct". The "interests of the state" is, in fact, the interests of the citizens of the state. Not allowing you to have livestock is just taking into account that the neighbors also have rights, not simply requiring conformity.

The distinction is in the purpose. Many laws today don't even pretend to be about protecting our rights, but are simply using the power of government to achieve some arbitrary social "good" that currently has majority support.

Not all laws have to be about protecting rights, although I think I can make an argument they ultimately do. Rights only exist within a stable society. They are not god given nor inalienable. They exist because we agree they exist and for no other reason. So a law dealing with sewer maintenance ultimately supports your rights.

Unfortunately, this is where your misunderstanding of the meaning and relevance of "inalienable rights" undermines our ability to communicate.

Communicating does not mean agreeing. I have not misunderstood you, I just think you are wrong. There is a difference.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes. Where is the line? Let's say I am a doctor. I walk along the street and there is a man dressed in one of those spiffy sheets with the eye holes. The man clutches his chest suddenly and falls to the ground. Can I just step over him because I don't like his fashion sense?

The law varies on that from state to state. The problem comes that if the doctor abides by a good samaritan law and tends to the white sheeted guy and something goes wrong, can the doctor be sued? Or anybody else who assists the person? If so, then there should be no requirement that any person be required to assume that risk.

While I never completely trust Wiki to get it exactly right, there is a really good discussion on this in the Common Law section here:
Duty to rescue - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is that if we are each at liberty to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. should the government be given authority to require one person to be in servitude to another person in any way? The exception would be in social contract that would require a person to be non discriminatory in their business or in a legal marriage contract that assumes certain responsibilities of husband and wife to each other and to their children. The reasoning is that those entering into business or marriage willingly assume specific responsibilities by virtue of their license/contract.

So then we get to the sticky wicket of how much must be required of a person in order to be in business? And does that include forcing the person to set aside all his religious, moral, and ethical convictions?

So I solve that problem with my conviction that yes, the person should serve even the person he abhors in his own place of business. But he should not be required to provide service at an EVENT which goes against his religious, moral, or ethical convictions. To me that is a perfectly reasonable compromise to achieve equal protection under the law.

In terms of the requirement of servitude, I think the answer is yes. However, it again becomes a matter how much. Can the government draft people into the armed forces? I can tell you the answer to that is yes, I served with quite a lot of them. Can you be compelled to testify in court? Yes. You agree you can be compelled to serve within the confines of the business site. So we come to that question again of where the line is. I'm not convinced where the physical location of the service matters, though I really do see your point. But a building is not an event. If selling flowers is not participating, I don't see how delivering flowers is. Let's assume we are talking about the hall rented for the ceremony. Can the owner of the hall refuse to rent it out for the same reason, despite the fact we are now talking about the business site?

For me, the question first is does the law violate the Constitution. I don't see that it does. Second, does it violate the State Constitution. In this case, again no. So whether I agree with the law or not, it is within the purview of the state to initiate and enforce the law. However, I am on the fence as to whether or not this particular application of the law is Constitutional. I don't think the florist was discriminating because they were gay. She was discriminating because she believes the ceremony is wrong.

When I argue what 'should's' and 'ought's' form my convictions and belief system, it really doesn't matter to me what the law says or what the court says. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law and court rulings.

I don't see service in the military or court testimony or jury duty as necessarily involuntary servitude however.

For instance yes, the Congress and Presidents and courts have agreed with a mandatory draft into the military. If every man and woman who physically qualifies for the service is subject to that draft, and it is done via a blind lottery system, that one is borderline for me. It is the constitutional mandate for the federal government to provide the common defense and those drafted are doing that on their own behalf as well as everybody else, so I think that one we have to think about. I do much prefer an all volunteer military as much as possible.

Being subpoenaed for court testimony or jury duty is another gray area--if our testimony is necessary to establish guilt or innocence or right or wrong, is this really servitude to another? Or an impartial and necessary system of achieving justice--one of those things we do in order to be citizens of a country just as we all should proportionately share in the NECESSARY funding of NECESSARY functions of government. Such things that benefit no privileged person or no special interest group but benefit all?

But again if we decide mandatory court testimony is a reasonable requirement for all citizens, people should be at least compensated for any financial costs or loss resulting from that testimony. And if mandatory jury duty is a necessary condition of citizenship, it must always be on a blind lottery system that ensures equal opportunity for all to participate.

Forcing a baker or florist or photographer or whatever to provide service at an event that is ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable to that business owner serves no uniform national interest and, IMO, violates every principle of what liberty is.

I understand your position on the law, but I'm not sure it is relevant. I personally think drug laws are morally and ethically wrong, as well as extraordinarily destructive to the country. But that does not mean I don't consider those laws to be valid. IOW, while wrong they do fall within the mission of the state. Perfection is simply not something we are going to achieve, especially since it is unlikely we will all agree as to what perfection is.

The point I was making is that it is not a yes/no issue. When you asked if the government should be given the authority to require one person to be in servitude to another, I indicated it could and gave examples as to how. You agreed with those examples. So it really isn't a matter of if, but of how much. So long as we operate under the rule if "it all depends", we are going to face this issue.

What is important is that the debate continue and be very public.

Weeeeeeellll....not quite. I didn't agree that the military draft or testifying in court or jury duty is involuntary servitude to another. I intended to classify such as necessary requirements for citizens in order for the government to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Such benefits us all including the person serving in the military or called as a witness or a juror. There is a huge difference between this and requiring a person to give up his/her time, labor, and resources for the benefit of another person or persons.

And I also did not mean to imply that I can legitimately disobey a law just because I don't like it. But when a law is unjust and when it violates every principle the Constitution is based on, then all of us should rise up in protest of that law and demand that it be overturned. And we are perfectly within our rights to demand arbitration of whether an oppressive law violates a higher principle protected by the Constitution and therefore can be disobeyed.

Servitude is servitude. If the state has a valid reason to require it, then it is a matter of degree only. You have indicated it is ok for the state to require me to serve you in my place of business, which is as much servitude as requiring me to come to your location if that is a service I offer to the public. We agree the line is somewhere in the middle, we just don't necessarily agree exactly where. That is the nature of human beings.

Of course we are in our rights to demand anything we like. That falls under the first amendment. If it is felt there is a violation of the Constitution, then we have the court system to respond. I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

 

[Seawytch]

I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

The court has responded. The constitutionality of PA laws is well established. The SCOTUS even had the opportunity to hear a case just like it, Elaine Photography. They refused, leaving the state supreme court ruling in place. That ruling? That discrimination took place that violated the state's PA laws.

 

[PratchettFan]

I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

The court has responded. The constitutionality of PA laws is well established. The SCOTUS even had the opportunity to hear a case just like it, Elaine Photography. They refused, leaving the state supreme court ruling in place. That ruling? That discrimination took place that violated the state's PA laws.

How many cases did the SC refuse to hear on SSM? The issue is not resolved yet. We are in a state of flux.

 

[bodecea]

Why should anyone have to move because of intolerance?
What if you are raised in that community? What if your family depends on you for support?

Ya mean like these 'ones'?

They were being forced to move, because one group of people could no longer tolerate the other group.

Doesn't look like the US does it?

No, but it does look like 'ones'... and it definitely is 'ones having to move due to intolerance', and specifically be the intolerance intrinsic to Islam, which is one of the 'religious' arms of the Ideological Left.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Hate to inform you...but they are not covered under our Constitutional protections......Homosexuals are

Well I hate to tell you, but once you idiots kick off the looming civil war, you will not be 'covered' by the Constitutional protections.

(Ya see that's sorta the downside to war. Once you people ignite it, you're going to which you'd been a lot more willing to shut the fuck up and NOT been to eager to fundamentally change the United States.(

"The looming civil war". Drama Queen much?

 

[Seawytch]

I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

The court has responded. The constitutionality of PA laws is well established. The SCOTUS even had the opportunity to hear a case just like it, Elaine Photography. They refused, leaving the state supreme court ruling in place. That ruling? That discrimination took place that violated the state's PA laws.

How many cases did the SC refuse to hear on SSM? The issue is not resolved yet. We are in a state of flux.

How many PA laws have made it to the SCOTUS? Enough to know they aren't going to suddenly start allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs. They reiterated that point in the recent Hobby Lobby ruling.

 

[bodecea]

,

move

Why should anyone have to move because of intolerance?
What if you are raised in that community? What if your family depends on you for support?

If you lived in north korea would you try to move out? If you don't like the way a country, state, city, or community operates, find one that suits you don't demand that the others change.

What you want is dictatorial thought control enforced by a tyranical government-------thats what you are asking for and you are too dumb to even realize it.

The point is we are not North Korea

Americans should have access to any business in this country. You want to do business here, you follow the rules.

We are no longer a nation of ....We don't serve n*ggers here

True, but that is not analogous to "we choose not to sell flowers for gay weddings". Find the florist who is willing to sell his products to gays, boycott the other guy. Drive him out of business. Find a gay florist (I suspect that there are a lot of them).

Same concept. If you refuse to sell flowers for religious reasons, you can refuse a meal or lodging for religious reasons

Like I said, in much of the south you will find 90% Southern Baptists. If one refuses to serve you......they all will

The thing is, today they don't quite have the power they used to have to keep their "flock" as one. Remember the Disney boycott? The Coke boycott?

 

[PratchettFan]

I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

The court has responded. The constitutionality of PA laws is well established. The SCOTUS even had the opportunity to hear a case just like it, Elaine Photography. They refused, leaving the state supreme court ruling in place. That ruling? That discrimination took place that violated the state's PA laws.

How many cases did the SC refuse to hear on SSM? The issue is not resolved yet. We are in a state of flux.

How many PA laws have made it to the SCOTUS? Enough to know they aren't going to suddenly start allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs. They reiterated that point in the recent Hobby Lobby ruling.

You have a point. But that does not mean the issue is resolved. I'm not sure it ever will be. I would point out that in the Hobby Lobby ruling, the court held that religious beliefs are a basis for being held exempt from a law.

This really isn't a black and white issue. It is entirely grey. This is particularly true in the florist case.

 

[dblack]

Communicating does not mean agreeing. I have not misunderstood you, I just think you are wrong. There is a difference.

Actually, you have. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. And I really wish you'd give it another shot. The concept of inalienable rights you're rejecting isn't the one I'm citing. You're focused exclusively on which rights are actually protected by government, as though the protection of a given right is what makes it 'inalienable'. But that has nothing to do with the concept I'm referring to.

"Inalienable" is a way to distinguish, out of all the possible "rights" we might claim, those are fundamentally linked to free will. It doesn't mean they're "sacrosanct" or that they're somehow magically protected without government. It just means that they are rights we can exercise as an inherent property of volition, without needing any empowerment from an outside source. The shorthand for that is often framed as "rights we'd still have if no one else was even around".

It's important because it draws a distinction between rights that don't require active assistance from others, and those that do. It's also important because these kinds of rights aren't a zero some game. One person's right to free speech doesn't diminish another's. What I see you doing is assuming all rights essentially step on each other and government is just a matter of balancing that. That's what prompts you to conclude that corporatism is inevitable, and it's why I'm saying it's not.

 

[Seawytch]

I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

The court has responded. The constitutionality of PA laws is well established. The SCOTUS even had the opportunity to hear a case just like it, Elaine Photography. They refused, leaving the state supreme court ruling in place. That ruling? That discrimination took place that violated the state's PA laws.

How many cases did the SC refuse to hear on SSM? The issue is not resolved yet. We are in a state of flux.

How many PA laws have made it to the SCOTUS? Enough to know they aren't going to suddenly start allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs. They reiterated that point in the recent Hobby Lobby ruling.

You have a point. But that does not mean the issue is resolved. I'm not sure it ever will be. I would point out that in the Hobby Lobby ruling, the court held that religious beliefs are a basis for being held exempt from a law.

This really isn't a black and white issue. It is entirely grey. This is particularly true in the florist case.

Yes they did, but with a lot of qualifiers...like pointing out specifically that religion is not going to be allowed to be used to discriminate. Scalia and Kennedy were very clear about that.

The florist case is no more "grey" than the photographers case that the SCOTUS didn't hear.

 

[ChrisL]

This is only an issue for gays and religious people. Myself, I say we let them be married. It doesn't effect anyone else's marriage. Marriage should be about what's in your heart, not a piece of paper issued by the government. Also, I don't see homos making more of a mockery of marriage than what heterosexuals have already done. Lol.

Your marriage is a personal thing and is not going to be effected by gays getting married. The only ones who REALLY seem to object are the religious fanatics. Instead of just going by live and let live, they want to force their religious beliefs that being homosexual is a "sin." I think a lot of them should be focusing on themselves and stop being so judgmental. Let God worry about that stuff.

 

[PratchettFan]

Communicating does not mean agreeing. I have not misunderstood you, I just think you are wrong. There is a difference.

Actually, you have. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. And I really wish you'd give it another shot. The concept of inalienable rights you're rejecting isn't the one I'm citing. You're focused exclusively on which rights are actually protected by government, as though the protection of a given right is what makes it 'inalienable'. But that has nothing to do with the concept I'm referring to.

"Inalienable" is a way to distinguish, out of all the possible "rights" we might claim, those are fundamentally linked to free will. It doesn't mean they're "sacrosanct" or that they're somehow magically protected without government. It just means that they are rights we can exercise as an inherent property of volition, without needing any empowerment from an outside source. The shorthand for that is often framed as "rights we'd still have if no one else was even around".

It's important because it draws a distinction between rights that don't require active assistance from others, and those that do. It's also important because these kinds of rights aren't a zero some game. One person's right to free speech doesn't diminish another's. What I see you doing is assuming all rights essentially step on each other and government is just a matter of balancing that. That's what prompts you to conclude that corporatism is inevitable, and it's why I'm saying it's not.

I really do understand what you are saying. My response is the same. What you are describing does not exist. It has no basis in reality.

I am not saying it isn't important. Myths as very important to human beings. One could argue there is no God, but that does not change the importance of religion. However, just because rights might arise out of a common mythos does not make it any less a mythos. Those rights exist only so long as the society agrees they exist. Outside of society you have no rights at all, because rights only have meaning within a society. Talking about rights outside of society is like pointing out fashion tips in a nudist colony.

You can argue your freedom of speech does not impose upon mine, but it may well impose upon my right to privacy, my right not to be harassed, my right not to be libeled. It may impose upon my personal safety or the safety of the nation. It does not exist in a vacuum and you keep it only to the extent your neighbors agree you can keep it. If they disagree, it is difficult to exercise your freedom of speech while hanging from a tree or burning at a stake.

 

[Redfish]

This is only an issue for gays and religious people. Myself, I say we let them be married. It doesn't effect anyone else's marriage. Marriage should be about what's in your heart, not a piece of paper issued by the government. Also, I don't see homos making more of a mockery of marriage than what heterosexuals have already done. Lol.

Your marriage is a personal thing and is not going to be effected by gays getting married. The only ones who REALLY seem to object are the religious fanatics. Instead of just going by live and let live, they want to force their religious beliefs that being homosexual is a "sin." I think a lot of them should be focusing on themselves and stop being so judgmental. Let God worry about that stuff.

If that would be the end of it, fine. But it would not be. advocates of multiple marriage, sibling marriage, etc would use the exact same arguments that the gay lobby is using today, and there will be no way to argue against them because they will have the gay rulings as precedent.

The gays claim its about money and unequal treatment, polygamists can, and will, say exactly the same things.

Two married siblings could avoid the inheritence tax when one of them died.