Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[dblack]

Well, if he has more than one choice, he isn't being compelled.

That idiotic. If someone points a gun at you says "You have a choice, give me all your money, or give me your car" - in your twisted worldview, that's not coercion, because they're offered a "choice"? I don't think you're that stupid. Are you?

 

[Doug1943]

That idiotic. If someone points a gun at you says "You have a choice, give me all your money, or give me your car" - in your twisted worldview, that's not coercion? I don't think you're that stupid. Are you?

What the hard Left want to do is to de-legitimize certain viewpoints. That is, they don't want to say, "You're wrong, you're mistaken..." -- the way the old-fashioned liberals and conservatives used to argue about welfare, or invading Iraq.

They have the 1984 approach: they want everyone to be compelled to pretend to believe what the hard Left believes, or to stay silent. And this includes 'performative' speech like backing a cake celebrating gay marriages.

It's the same mentality that they bring to campuses: they don't debate us, they try to shut down our meetings.

It is, of course, inconceivable now ... but if they get the strength, one day they'll be closing down our publishers and printed journals, and our websites, for 'hate speech'.

They've got certain contradictions, though. Muslims are one of their victim groups, but Muslims tend to be very socially conservative ... which they sometimes express in very direct ways. But the way to expose the hypocrisy of our totalitarian Left is to ask this simple question: Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake celebrating Israeli Independence Day?

 

[dblack]

What the hard Left want to do is to de-legitimize certain viewpoints. That is, they don't want to say, "You're wrong, you're mistaken..." -- the way the old-fashioned liberals and conservatives used to argue about welfare, or invading Iraq.

They have the 1984 approach: they want everyone to be compelled to pretend to believe what the hard Left believes, or to stay silent. And this includes 'performative' speech like backing a cake celebrating gay marriages.

It's the same mentality that they bring to campuses: they don't debate us, they try to shut down our meetings.

It is, of course, inconceivable now ... but if they get the strength, one day they'll be closing down our publishers and printed journals, and our websites, for 'hate speech'.

They've got certain contradictions, though. Muslims are one of their victim groups, but Muslims tend to be very socially conservative ... which they sometimes express in very direct ways. But the way to expose the hypocrisy of our totalitarian Left is to ask this simple question: Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake celebrating Israeli Independence Day?

The left has rejected equal rights and individual liberty. They've replace them with "civil rights" and "equity". The opposite. They're more interested in telling people how to live.

 

[HeyNorm]

The left has rejected equal rights and individual liberty. They've replace them with "civil rights" and "equity". The opposite. They're more interested in telling people how to live.

And, in large part, they do this by bastardizing the legal argument of similarly situated adults.

 

[mak2]

The left has rejected equal rights and individual liberty. They've replace them with "civil rights" and "equity". The opposite. They're more interested in telling people how to live.

What about civil rights do you disagree with?

 

[dblack]

What about civil rights do you disagree with?

They're not equal rights. They're not really rights at all. They're simply targeted suppression of certain types of bias.

 

[mak2]

They're not equal rights. They're not really rights at all. They're simply targeted suppression of certain types of bias.

So you are pro bias?

 

[dblack]

So you are pro bias?

Nope. I just don't think they should be dictated by the state.

 

[HeyNorm]

What about civil rights do you disagree with?

When they are determined by non immutable characteristics or not specifically protected in the constitution.

 

[mak2]

When they are determined by non immutable characteristics or not specifically protected in the constitution.

Specifically what about civil rights do you disagree with? What is something I think of as a civil right you disagree with? LIke the civil rights act of 1964?

 

[HeyNorm]

Specifically what about civil rights do you disagree with? What is something I think of as a civil right you disagree with? LIke the civil rights act of 1964?

The obergfell decision.

 

[mak2]

The obergfell decision.

How does gay people getting married effect you?

 

[dblack]

How does gay people getting married effect you?

It doesn't.

Speaking for myself, I fully support equal rights under the law, including gay marriage. The government should treat everyone equally, without bias. The problem with civil rights is that they demand that everyone treat others equally (but only in a few cases described by the "protected classes").

The irony there is that, to ensure that no one is expressing the banned biases, government must treat people unequally. It's the opposite of equal rights.

 

[HeyNorm]

How does gay people getting married effect you?

Nice deflection. The question was not about how it affects me, but how it effects civil rights, and discrimination cases moving forward.

 

[mak2]

It doesn't.

Speaking for myself, I fully support equal rights under the law, including gay marriage. The government should treat everyone equally, without bias. The problem with civil rights is that they demand that everyone treat others equally (but only in a few cases described by the "protected classes"). The irony there is that, to ensure that no one is expressing the banned biases, government must treat people unequally. It's the opposite of equal rights.

Specifically, how does the government ensuring gay people can get married treat people unequally? I really don't understand the RW argument with topics like this. Seems to me if the RW stuck to it's beliefs it would be all for civil rights.

 

[mak2]

Nice deflection. The question was not about how it affects me, but how it effects civil rights, and discrimination cases moving forward.

Ok, please explain.

 

[dblack]

Specifically, how does the government ensuring gay people can get married treat people unequally?

It doesn't. Ensuring that people bake them cakes, or provide them with any other services against their will, does however.

I really don't understand the RW argument with topics like this. Seems to me if the RW stuck to it's beliefs it would be all for civil rights.

I'm a libertarian. I don't consider that right wing, though you might. Regardless, my argument is that these laws violate fundamental rights of self-determination, freedom of association and freedom of speech. In general, I don't think government should have the power to engage in this kind of social engineering.

 

[HeyNorm]

Ok, please explain.

Prior to obergfell, only immutable characteristics were used in discrimination suits.

The “I was born this way” argument was with undeniable medical evidence.

A black can prove he is black, and he has no choice in the matter, as can a Hispanic, as can a woman.

A gay cannot.

Now we have transgenders claiming discrimination. They claim they should be able to participate in womens sports, because they are “similarly situated” to biological women.

And there is where the problem continues.

If trans get to participate in womens sports, then any biological man can claim they should be allowed to as well because they are “similarly situated” with the trans who is allowed participation. And there is no immutable difference between the non trans, and the trans.

It would, in fact, be against any man’s civil rights to deny their civil right in the matter.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No one is depriving gays of their rights. Gays are certainly not under attack. Do they have a right to a wedding cake? The law says yes. Do they have a right to a cake baked by this specific individual? The most basic understanding of fundamental freedom says no.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Specifically, how does the government ensuring gay people can get married treat people unequally? I really don't understand the RW argument with topics like this. Seems to me if the RW stuck to it's beliefs it would be all for civil rights.

Fifty years ago, homosexuals were recognized as "perverts." They claimed that what they did in the privacy of their own bedrooms was nobody else's business.

That evil has advanced to the point where homosexuals now parade down streets looking sick while giggling in your faces.
They molest children by the thousands and try to excuse it away. They malign priests for pedophilia when every single priest molesting boys is, by definition, homosexual. They have infected thousands of normal, decent people with AIDS and insist on keeping it secret, by government edict.

Transgenders are the newest sick invention of evil minds with universities now offering free sex conversion surgeries.

These aren't "civil rights," they're evil, calling itself "gay."

Homosexuals are unusually violent and murderous. I have a list of the most prolific mass murderers who were homosexuals, including Jeff Dahmer, Randy Kraft, John Wayne Gacey, William Bonin, Patrick Kearney, Juan Corona, and a homosexual murder ring, Corll,-Henry-Brooks, who raped and then killed 28 teenagers. They also have extremely shortened lifespans, by their own doing.
Karma is a Hillary.