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.

 

[PratchettFan]

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

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?

That's what disturbs me most about all of this. We're moving away from government that protects our freedom to one that tells us how to live.

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

having to abide by laws is different from being told what to believe.

No one is telling anyone what to believe. You can't tell anyone what to believe. The most you can do is tell them what or what not to say. One need only look at this board to see that is not happening either.

 

[Redfish]

,

You don't? really? your town only has one baker, grocer, gas station, dry cleaner, restaurant?

That was really a stupid statement, seabiscuit.

If you live in a town where 90% of the population is Southern Baptist you have little choice over who you do business with. What do you do of you are raised in a community where everyone refuses to do business with you for religious reasons?

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).

 

[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.

 

[Redfish]

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?

That's what disturbs me most about all of this. We're moving away from government that protects our freedom to one that tells us how to live.

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

having to abide by laws is different from being told what to believe.

No one is telling anyone what to believe. You can't tell anyone what to believe. The most you can do is tell them what or what not to say. One need only look at this board to see that is not happening either.

not true, you want the government to punish anyone who does not believe what the govenment dictates. Does that sound kinda like saudi arabia to you?

 

[Redfish]

,

You don't? really? your town only has one baker, grocer, gas station, dry cleaner, restaurant?

That was really a stupid statement, seabiscuit.

If you live in a town where 90% of the population is Southern Baptist you have little choice over who you do business with. What do you do of you are raised in a community where everyone refuses to do business with you for religious reasons?

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.

Conservatives claimed the voting rights act of 1965 was tyranny.

You people define tyranny as anything you disagree with.

Wrong, that was the dems. the dems tried to fillibuster it.

 

[Silhouette]

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).

But then the poor weak downtrodden legal-militant LGBT machine couldn't choreograph-sue and force them legally into redacting the word marriage and the Bible itself. That's not fair! If you keep up with that type of oppression, some of them will have to threaten to commit suicide..

 

[dblack]

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".

 

[PratchettFan]

What if your business only involves going to a place. Can a plumber say no?

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

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.

 

[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.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

That's what disturbs me most about all of this. We're moving away from government that protects our freedom to one that tells us how to live.

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

having to abide by laws is different from being told what to believe.

No one is telling anyone what to believe. You can't tell anyone what to believe. The most you can do is tell them what or what not to say. One need only look at this board to see that is not happening either.

not true, you want the government to punish anyone who does not believe what the govenment dictates. Does that sound kinda like saudi arabia to you?

That is flatly untrue. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you just haven't read what I have written with care, rather than just calling you a liar. In either case, I think you and I are done.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's still strikes me as kind of nuts that he can't.

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.

 

[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?

 

[rightwinger]

,

If you live in a town where 90% of the population is Southern Baptist you have little choice over who you do business with. What do you do of you are raised in a community where everyone refuses to do business with you for religious reasons?

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

 

[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.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Yes, of course you would and where such is relevant, you SHOULD!

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[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

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yes, of course you would and where such is relevant, you SHOULD!

Got it.......We don't serve n*ggers here

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Yes, of course you would and where such is relevant, you SHOULD!

Got it.......We don't serve n*ggers here

That's a great signature candidate.

But I already have a great signature, so I can't accept your contribution, at this time.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.