Obama admin admits SSM is threat to religious liberty

[martybegan]

And again, its the same choice you are giving the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, either accept and comply, or go out of business.

How is it the same choice?

I work for a company that is based in NY (for example) and they decide to move to AL where, in your scenario, the courts do not recognize a woman's right to privacy. I don't have a vote in that matter; I either accept the limitations on my liberty or quit. Obviously, I wouldn't have any standing to sue the company since I do not own the company.

If I worked for a bakery that made the move, I would fall under your comparison.
but I wouldn't have any right to sue them to stop the move.


But the bakery is in town X and a couple comes in and wants them to bake a cake. The baker refuses...

In no way is it the same argument. Please explain how it is. I guess you're trying to equate that my losing my right to privacy is analogous to the baker's right to make a religious objection or a values argument or something. Is that the case? Again, what if the baker just chose not to serve blacks or protestants or jews or people with red hair. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

Why not just choose not to move to Alabama?

Why not just choose to close up shop if you don't want to make cakes?

You finally see it, even if you don't.

Well, that makes as much sense as anything else you've posted.

I simply temporarily employed your strategy of answering every question with another question. When you've lost the argument (i.e. you can't tell us why it's different to discriminate against blacks but it's okay to discriminate against gays), it's what you do.

You don't move to Alabama if it means giving up your civil rights and you shouldn't have to make such a choice. That is the answer (I gave it 3 times already). No injury is suffered by your baking a cake for someone who is gay. When you call a 1-800 number to inquire about flight reservations or argue about a bill, you may be dealing with a gay person. No injury is suffered. You may have shook the hands of a gay man today at a meeting. Again, no injury is suffered.

The equation you're trying to apply simply doesn't work. Deep down, you know this which is why you employ the loser strategy of answering questions with questions.

When gays and those (like me) who are sympathetic to their plight celebrate the upcoming SCOUS decision affirming gay marriage, it's particularly satisfying because of discussions like the one we just had.

You know, it's okay to admit you lost the argument and you have no leg to stand on. Its' the internet and nobody knows you here.

Have a nice day.

The injury is someone being forced to do something against their will. For all progressives claims of empathy, you just can't see it, because you can't see beyond your own belief structure.

I am sympathetic to the desire for SSM, not just the method of getting it you prefer. I understand that gay couples might be hurt by having to find another baker, but forcing someone to comply or lose their livelihood is not a proportional response to this.

You suffer from the same problem most progressives do, you have to assign some dark ulterior motive to those who disagree with you.

 

[martybegan]

Again, how is Alabama restricting abortion affecting you in NY?

I told you. If my company moves to Alabma and it doesn't recognize my right to privacy, that injures my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because I would have to decide between my livelyhood and my right to privacy.

Since gay couples are not interacting with you in any way, shape or form, you cannot claim any such injury.

And again, its the same choice you are giving the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, either accept and comply, or go out of business.

How is it the same choice?

I work for a company that is based in NY (for example) and they decide to move to AL where, in your scenario, the courts do not recognize a woman's right to privacy. I don't have a vote in that matter; I either accept the limitations on my liberty or quit. Obviously, I wouldn't have any standing to sue the company since I do not own the company.

If I worked for a bakery that made the move, I would fall under your comparison.
but I wouldn't have any right to sue them to stop the move.


But the bakery is in town X and a couple comes in and wants them to bake a cake. The baker refuses...

In no way is it the same argument. Please explain how it is. I guess you're trying to equate that my losing my right to privacy is analogous to the baker's right to make a religious objection or a values argument or something. Is that the case? Again, what if the baker just chose not to serve blacks or protestants or jews or people with red hair. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

Why not just choose not to move to Alabama?

Why not just choose to close up shop if you don't want to make cakes?

Why should you have to?