Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

[Kosh]

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.

And f they had no other choices in 100 mile area I may have agreed with you, but this was not about choice. It was about punishment and revenge.

And as you can see the far left pushes that agenda.

 

[bendog]

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.

And f they had no other choices in 100 mile area I may have agreed with you, but this was not about choice. It was about punishment and revenge.

And as you can see the far left pushes that agenda.

 

[bendog]

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.

And f they had no other choices in 100 mile area I may have agreed with you, but this was not about choice. It was about punishment and revenge.

And as you can see the far left pushes that agenda.

Actually, you did agree with me. Assuming you think PA laws are justifiable to prevent race and religion discrimination, but mostly not justifiable to prevent GLBT discrimination.

 

[Kosh]

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.

And f they had no other choices in 100 mile area I may have agreed with you, but this was not about choice. It was about punishment and revenge.

And as you can see the far left pushes that agenda.

Actually, you did agree with me. Assuming you think PA laws are justifiable to prevent race and religion discrimination, but mostly not justifiable to prevent GLBT discrimination.

No you just have proven that this about revenge and not the law of the land..

 

[dblack]

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

Yes. That's repeating the point you made earlier. Shall I repeat my response as well?

Do you really see no substantive difference a right to abstain and the power to force others to serve you?

 

[bendog]

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.

And f they had no other choices in 100 mile area I may have agreed with you, but this was not about choice. It was about punishment and revenge.

And as you can see the far left pushes that agenda.

Actually, you did agree with me. Assuming you think PA laws are justifiable to prevent race and religion discrimination, but mostly not justifiable to prevent GLBT discrimination.

No you just have proven that this about revenge and not the law of the land..

Possibly, but that does not mean I agree that revenge is a good thing.

 

[bendog]

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

Yes. That's repeating the point you made earlier. Shall I repeat my response as well?

Do you really see no substantive difference a right to abstain and the power to force others to serve you?

But do you believe that people should be allowed to base contract decisions in order to discriminate on race and religion?

 

[dblack]

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

Yes. That's repeating the point you made earlier. Shall I repeat my response as well?

Do you really see no substantive difference a right to abstain and the power to force others to serve you?

But do you believe that people should be allowed to base contract decisions in order to discriminate on race and religion?

Absolutely. People should never be compelled to enter into a contract, nor forced to agree to a transaction against their will, regardless of their reasons. In fact, voluntary agreement used to be the foundation of free trade, of freedom. I don't know how we got so lost that that is no longer a consideration.

 

[Kosh]

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.

And f they had no other choices in 100 mile area I may have agreed with you, but this was not about choice. It was about punishment and revenge.

And as you can see the far left pushes that agenda.

Actually, you did agree with me. Assuming you think PA laws are justifiable to prevent race and religion discrimination, but mostly not justifiable to prevent GLBT discrimination.

No you just have proven that this about revenge and not the law of the land..

Possibly, but that does not mean I agree that revenge is a good thing.

Every time you vote far left or agree with these cases, then you do agree that revenge is a good thing. As the far left only promotes hatred of anything that is not in the far left mantra..

 

[bendog]

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

Yes. That's repeating the point you made earlier. Shall I repeat my response as well?

Do you really see no substantive difference a right to abstain and the power to force others to serve you?

But do you believe that people should be allowed to base contract decisions in order to discriminate on race and religion?

Absolutely. People should never be compelled to enter into a contract, nor forced to agree to a transaction against their will, regardless of their reasons. In fact, voluntary agreement used to be the foundation of free trade, of freedom. I don't know how we got so lost that that is no longer a consideration.

Well, in 1962, the South wasn't gonna serve blacks no matter what. Possibly, had the blacks been forced to endure another 20 years of discrimination, Wal-Mart and Col Sanders might have turned it around. But, imo, that price was too high to protect some bigots right to contract. Possibly, the govt could simply have not permitted the bigots to obtain sales tax licenses, because the govt has a duty to treat all equally so long as all behave equally.

However, I don't see the GLBT folks getting jerked around like the blacks got jerked around ... quite literally in some cases .... with ropes.

 

[dblack]

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

Yes. That's repeating the point you made earlier. Shall I repeat my response as well?

Do you really see no substantive difference a right to abstain and the power to force others to serve you?

But do you believe that people should be allowed to base contract decisions in order to discriminate on race and religion?

Absolutely. People should never be compelled to enter into a contract, nor forced to agree to a transaction against their will, regardless of their reasons. In fact, voluntary agreement used to be the foundation of free trade, of freedom. I don't know how we got so lost that that is no longer a consideration.

Well, in 1962, the South wasn't gonna serve blacks no matter what. Possibly, had the blacks been forced to endure another 20 years of discrimination, Wal-Mart and Col Sanders might have turned it around. But, imo, that price was too high to protect some bigots right to contract. Possibly, the govt could simply have not permitted the bigots to obtain sales tax licenses, because the govt has a duty to treat all equally so long as all behave equally.

However, I don't see the GLBT folks getting jerked around like the blacks got jerked around ... quite literally in some cases .... with ropes.

Yeah. Slavery was THE fundamental mistake of our founders. And maybe PA laws and protected classes have accelerated positive change in society. But we need to recognize what they sacrifice, and call a halt to it. History is full of solutions that "worked", in terms of achieving short term goals, yet were later understood to be bad general policy.

 

[Flopper]

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

 

[dblack]

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You're better than that.

 

[Flopper]

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.

The basic business problem with discrimination is you don't make money turning away customers.

 

[Flopper]

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You're better than that.

The truth is the legal right to refuse service is limited by state laws, municipal laws, and the civil rights act. Businesses have only limited right to refuse service That's a fact. You can certainly argue that the laws are wrong but there should be no disagreement that it its law.

 

[dblack]

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You're better than that.

The truth is there is no legal right to refuse service to anyone. That's a fact. You can certainly argue that the law is wrong but there should be no disagreement that it its law.

Whether we honor a right to do nothing is a matter of political fact - and you're right, we don't. But it is fundamental to any coherent conception of freedom. The idea that I can be guilty of a crime by doing nothing is insane.

 

[Kosh]

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You mean far left punishment because they dare to think differently than the far left religious drones..

 

[Kosh]

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You're better than that.

The truth is the legal right to refuse service is limited by state laws, municipal laws, and the civil rights act. Businesses have only limited right to refuse service That's a fact. You can certainly argue that the laws are wrong but there should be no disagreement that it its law.

Yet many are refused and invent claims of discrimination, others who want to punish others for not thinking like the far left religious drones..

 

[PostmodernProph]

If it's legal, it's not pretend.

that's what your pretending, that legal equals real......

I think Sweet Cakes bakery has learned a thing or two about pretend laws and real ones. lol

not pretend laws......pretend marriages.....

 

[Flopper]

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You're better than that.

The truth is there is no legal right to refuse service to anyone. That's a fact. You can certainly argue that the law is wrong but there should be no disagreement that it its law.

Whether we honor a right to do nothing is a matter of political fact - and you're right, we don't. But it is fundamental to any coherent conception of freedom. The idea that I can be guilty of a crime by doing nothing is insane.

Really, well that should be news to the IRS who certainly requires that you report income, social social security wages and contributions, and a number of state and federal government agencies that put requirements on businesses. Just do nothing when presented with a summons to appear in court and see what happens. You can certainly be charged with a crime by doing nothing.