Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

They aren't? I'm seeing a lot of arguments here that are saying exactly that.

You have every right to be a racist and a bigot. I have every right to criticize you for those beliefs.

But do you have a right to organize and target me, threaten my customers, threaten my advertisers, threaten my associates, threaten my employees, disrupt my business, and harm me physically and materially because you don't like my beliefs? How do you equate that with tolerance?

Yes but that is not the government actively engaging, that is the people organizing and making their own decision.

Neither of us mentioned the government in this context though. Do you think people should have the right to disrupt a person's business and materially and/or physically attempt to harm him purely because he expressed a view they don't like?

 

[Carla_Danger]

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

They aren't? I'm seeing a lot of arguments here that are saying exactly that.

You have every right to be a racist and a bigot. I have every right to criticize you for those beliefs.

But do you have a right to organize and target me, threaten my customers, threaten my advertisers, threaten my associates, threaten my employees, disrupt my business, and harm me physically and materially because you don't like my beliefs? How do you equate that with tolerance?

Sure, I can protest at your home and place of business. You can do the same to mine. That's what we call free speech. To harm someone physically is against the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

As I recall the Founding Fathers set up free public libraries and schools on the understanding that in order for We the People to be able to govern ourselves we need an informed and educated electorate.

Ignorance is not "liberty", it is a form of subservience that the Church used for hundreds of years in order to maintain it's control over the people.

The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to that same thing happening in the nation that they founded for our benefit.

There is nothing in the least bit "tolerant" about allowing ignorance to be imposed on our children.

The founding fathers did absolutely nothing, zilch, zero, nada regarding what education the states and communities were required to provide for the children. They saw absolutely no constitutional role for the federal government in that regard. Promoting good education and dictating it are two entirely different things.

Again it comes down to a matter of liberty and tolerating the choices different people make for themselves and their own. We either assume those in the central government to be so godlike they know what is best for everybody. Or we assume that those who are living their lives know best how to live them.

Founding Fathers Appalled At Attacks On Free Public Education - The Winning Words Project

After outlining a legislative framework, Adams moves on to specifics. After a well-armed militia, Adams wrote, "Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."

Thomas Jefferson was so committed to his belief that self-government was doomed to fail without an educated electorate that in his 1806 State of the Union address, he called for federally funded public education, saying "An amendment to our constitution must here come in the aid of public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people." When he could not garner support for a constitutional amendment, he set about to create a framework for his vision for public education, which ultimately failed to pass the Congress. In the end, Jefferson settled for the establishment of the College of William and Mary, now the University of Virginia*, as a legacy to his undying belief in public education.

In all the research and reading I have done on this subject, I've been unable to find one Founding Father who devalued public education or argued against education of the general public. There was disagreement around who should control public education. The same conflict we see today between federalists and state's rights advocates hindered the question of whether public education should be a state matter or a federal matter, which ultimately led to the defeat of Jefferson's initiatives. Yes, tension existed as to whether states, municipalities or the federal government should control public education, but no one opposed the idea of providing one at public expense.

As I dug into the question of our core founding values, I was struck by how far astray we've gone. Jefferson believed that public education was the "key-stone of the arch of our government," and paying for it was a patriotic act. Indeed, he believed it as patriotic as paying for a well-armed military or saluting the flag.


We the People elect representatives to make decisions for us. That is what the government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people means. Abraham Lincoln understood that principle but it seems to no longer part of the education curriculum of those who believe that "government is the problem" because they don't understand that they are the government themselves.

Jefferson was unable to convince Congress to furnish a single nickle toward the establishment of the University of Virginia when Jefferson proposed that as the first non secular institution of higher learning. In time he and the Virginia legislature got it done at the state level, but Thomas Jefferson is one name among many. And he did not object to the will of Congress who got it absolutely right in that instance. It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

Again promoting good education is not the same thing as funding or dictating education. Jefferson had very strong views about a great many things, but he also understood that his views could not be forced upon any other if there was to be liberty. He demonstrated tolerance of belief and conviction as the unalienable right of the people to have regardless of how unpopular it might be.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

Yes it is discrimination if you are willing to bake wedding cakes for straight couples, but not willing to bake them for gay couples. No, it is not discrimination to have laws protecting people from being discriminated against.

I see. So your definition of non discrimination is requiring the business owner to serve a customer no matter how offensive or immoral or unethical he believes a product ordered is or the activity in which he is required to participate?

If I have a lawn mowing business and I mow the grass at a Baptist Church, and am in no way participating in their religion.

I agree. But if you have a problem with those Baptists and don't want your name or your business associated with them by being on their premises, you should have every right to refuse to accept their business. I, for instance, would not be mowing the Westboro Baptist's lawn.

Then why do you feel a baker is participating in gay activities, simply for baking and assembling a cake?

 

[sakinago]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

As I recall the Founding Fathers set up free public libraries and schools on the understanding that in order for We the People to be able to govern ourselves we need an informed and educated electorate.

Ignorance is not "liberty", it is a form of subservience that the Church used for hundreds of years in order to maintain it's control over the people.

The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to that same thing happening in the nation that they founded for our benefit.

There is nothing in the least bit "tolerant" about allowing ignorance to be imposed on our children.

The founding fathers did absolutely nothing, zilch, zero, nada regarding what education the states and communities were required to provide for the children. They saw absolutely no constitutional role for the federal government in that regard. Promoting good education and dictating it are two entirely different things.

Again it comes down to a matter of liberty and tolerating the choices different people make for themselves and their own. We either assume those in the central government to be so godlike they know what is best for everybody. Or we assume that those who are living their lives know best how to live them.

Founding Fathers Appalled At Attacks On Free Public Education - The Winning Words Project

After outlining a legislative framework, Adams moves on to specifics. After a well-armed militia, Adams wrote, "Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."

Thomas Jefferson was so committed to his belief that self-government was doomed to fail without an educated electorate that in his 1806 State of the Union address, he called for federally funded public education, saying "An amendment to our constitution must here come in the aid of public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people." When he could not garner support for a constitutional amendment, he set about to create a framework for his vision for public education, which ultimately failed to pass the Congress. In the end, Jefferson settled for the establishment of the College of William and Mary, now the University of Virginia*, as a legacy to his undying belief in public education.

In all the research and reading I have done on this subject, I've been unable to find one Founding Father who devalued public education or argued against education of the general public. There was disagreement around who should control public education. The same conflict we see today between federalists and state's rights advocates hindered the question of whether public education should be a state matter or a federal matter, which ultimately led to the defeat of Jefferson's initiatives. Yes, tension existed as to whether states, municipalities or the federal government should control public education, but no one opposed the idea of providing one at public expense.

As I dug into the question of our core founding values, I was struck by how far astray we've gone. Jefferson believed that public education was the "key-stone of the arch of our government," and paying for it was a patriotic act. Indeed, he believed it as patriotic as paying for a well-armed military or saluting the flag.


We the People elect representatives to make decisions for us. That is what the government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people means. Abraham Lincoln understood that principle but it seems to no longer part of the education curriculum of those who believe that "government is the problem" because they don't understand that they are the government themselves.

I must have missed the post where

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

As I recall the Founding Fathers set up free public libraries and schools on the understanding that in order for We the People to be able to govern ourselves we need an informed and educated electorate.

Ignorance is not "liberty", it is a form of subservience that the Church used for hundreds of years in order to maintain it's control over the people.

The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to that same thing happening in the nation that they founded for our benefit.

There is nothing in the least bit "tolerant" about allowing ignorance to be imposed on our children.

The founding fathers did absolutely nothing, zilch, zero, nada regarding what education the states and communities were required to provide for the children. They saw absolutely no constitutional role for the federal government in that regard. Promoting good education and dictating it are two entirely different things.

Again it comes down to a matter of liberty and tolerating the choices different people make for themselves and their own. We either assume those in the central government to be so godlike they know what is best for everybody. Or we assume that those who are living their lives know best how to live them.

Founding Fathers Appalled At Attacks On Free Public Education - The Winning Words Project

After outlining a legislative framework, Adams moves on to specifics. After a well-armed militia, Adams wrote, "Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."

Thomas Jefferson was so committed to his belief that self-government was doomed to fail without an educated electorate that in his 1806 State of the Union address, he called for federally funded public education, saying "An amendment to our constitution must here come in the aid of public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people." When he could not garner support for a constitutional amendment, he set about to create a framework for his vision for public education, which ultimately failed to pass the Congress. In the end, Jefferson settled for the establishment of the College of William and Mary, now the University of Virginia*, as a legacy to his undying belief in public education.

In all the research and reading I have done on this subject, I've been unable to find one Founding Father who devalued public education or argued against education of the general public. There was disagreement around who should control public education. The same conflict we see today between federalists and state's rights advocates hindered the question of whether public education should be a state matter or a federal matter, which ultimately led to the defeat of Jefferson's initiatives. Yes, tension existed as to whether states, municipalities or the federal government should control public education, but no one opposed the idea of providing one at public expense.

As I dug into the question of our core founding values, I was struck by how far astray we've gone. Jefferson believed that public education was the "key-stone of the arch of our government," and paying for it was a patriotic act. Indeed, he believed it as patriotic as paying for a well-armed military or saluting the flag.


We the People elect representatives to make decisions for us. That is what the government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people means. Abraham Lincoln understood that principle but it seems to no longer part of the education curriculum of those who believe that "government is the problem" because they don't understand that they are the government themselves.

I'm must have missed the post where someone was going against education and I fail to see the point you are making. But I will say, the word liberal back then meant something very different from what it is today. It meant the more European definition of liberal, meaning that if it's not hurting or stealing from anyone, the government should have no business in being involved with it. Individuals can debate it amongst themselves, and that is encourage, but government deciding it is stepping over the line into tyranny. The Jeffersonian liberal is vastly different to liberalism today, which government is the hammer and human behavior is the nail.

And Carla with the first amendment, do you have the right to not be offended?

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

Yes it is discrimination if you are willing to bake wedding cakes for straight couples, but not willing to bake them for gay couples. No, it is not discrimination to have laws protecting people from being discriminated against.

I see. So your definition of non discrimination is requiring the business owner to serve a customer no matter how offensive or immoral or unethical he believes a product ordered is or the activity in which he is required to participate?

If I have a lawn mowing business and I mow the grass at a Baptist Church, and am in no way participating in their religion.

I agree. But if you have a problem with those Baptists and don't want your name or your business associated with them by being on their premises, you should have every right to refuse to accept their business. I, for instance, would not be mowing the Westboro Baptist's lawn.

Then why do you feel a baker is participating in gay activities, simply for baking and assembling a cake?

His name and his business establishment is involved with that cake. Modern wedding cakes aren't baked and picked up at the baker anymore. They are baked in pieces and then assembled and the final decorations applied at the reception hall. So the baker's truck is there, he is there, and that makes him participating in the event.

 

[sakinago]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

As I recall the Founding Fathers set up free public libraries and schools on the understanding that in order for We the People to be able to govern ourselves we need an informed and educated electorate.

Ignorance is not "liberty", it is a form of subservience that the Church used for hundreds of years in order to maintain it's control over the people.

The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to that same thing happening in the nation that they founded for our benefit.

There is nothing in the least bit "tolerant" about allowing ignorance to be imposed on our children.

The founding fathers did absolutely nothing, zilch, zero, nada regarding what education the states and communities were required to provide for the children. They saw absolutely no constitutional role for the federal government in that regard. Promoting good education and dictating it are two entirely different things.

Again it comes down to a matter of liberty and tolerating the choices different people make for themselves and their own. We either assume those in the central government to be so godlike they know what is best for everybody. Or we assume that those who are living their lives know best how to live them.

Founding Fathers Appalled At Attacks On Free Public Education - The Winning Words Project

After outlining a legislative framework, Adams moves on to specifics. After a well-armed militia, Adams wrote, "Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."

Thomas Jefferson was so committed to his belief that self-government was doomed to fail without an educated electorate that in his 1806 State of the Union address, he called for federally funded public education, saying "An amendment to our constitution must here come in the aid of public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people." When he could not garner support for a constitutional amendment, he set about to create a framework for his vision for public education, which ultimately failed to pass the Congress. In the end, Jefferson settled for the establishment of the College of William and Mary, now the University of Virginia*, as a legacy to his undying belief in public education.

In all the research and reading I have done on this subject, I've been unable to find one Founding Father who devalued public education or argued against education of the general public. There was disagreement around who should control public education. The same conflict we see today between federalists and state's rights advocates hindered the question of whether public education should be a state matter or a federal matter, which ultimately led to the defeat of Jefferson's initiatives. Yes, tension existed as to whether states, municipalities or the federal government should control public education, but no one opposed the idea of providing one at public expense.

As I dug into the question of our core founding values, I was struck by how far astray we've gone. Jefferson believed that public education was the "key-stone of the arch of our government," and paying for it was a patriotic act. Indeed, he believed it as patriotic as paying for a well-armed military or saluting the flag.


We the People elect representatives to make decisions for us. That is what the government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people means. Abraham Lincoln understood that principle but it seems to no longer part of the education curriculum of those who believe that "government is the problem" because they don't understand that they are the government themselves.

Jefferson was unable to convince Congress to furnish a single nickle toward the establishment of the University of Virginia when Jefferson proposed that as the first non secular institution of higher learning. In time he and the Virginia legislature got it done at the state level, but Thomas Jefferson is one name among many. And he did not object to the will of Congress who got it absolutely right in that instance. It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

Again promoting good education is not the same thing as funding or dictating education. Jefferson had very strong views about a great many things, but he also understood that his views could not be forced upon any other if there was to be liberty. He demonstrated tolerance of belief and conviction as the unalienable right of the people to have regardless of how unpopular it might be.

To add to your point the education system was heavily used by the nazis to push propaganda, and helped take down democratic society. The difference? Like I said before, the Jeffersonian liberal is vastly different from the "liberal" we see today

 

[Derideo_Te]

By denying the right to an abortion they are imposing their values and morals.

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Ah so SCOTUS is supreme, and therefore unquestionable. Which is odd because when they struck down DOMA 2 years ago, SCOTUS said that it is a states right issue and states should have the power to choose. But a couple of months ago they disagreed with their previous ruling saying states shall have no say in the matter, and gay marriage is the law of the land. If it sounds inconsistent its because it is inconsistent. How can you trust an inconsistent body to ok laws (recently they have been in the business of rewriting laws so they can be passed, for which they have no business of doing, e.g. Recent ACA ruling).

The real trick that we all seemed to miss is that we let government define yet again what is marriage, which is a religious institution. I thought we had the freedom of religion and that government shall make no law? So if my religion or beliefs allow me to marry the same sex, or multiple partners, I should be allowed to do so, should I not?

There was nothing inconsistent in what the SCOTUS did with DOMA.

Their initial ruling was valid and everything was fine until one of the Circuit courts made an inconsistent ruling with the DOMA ruling. At that point the SCOTUS had an obligation to step back in and clarify their ruling, which they did, and it was entirely consistent with their initial ruling on DOMA.

Furthermore marriage in not a religious institution. Marriage is a state contract. Holy Matrimony is a religious institution that incorporates the state marriage contract.

There is no "freedom of religion" when it comes to state marriage contracts since people of all religions and none at all are allowed to get married.

They went against states rights...which was the original argument for striking down DOMA...so despite the reasoning for that, it still remains inconsistent. Not to mention the Supreme Court is rewriting and re-wording laws which is not their place, it's the legislative branches place. Not to mention that slavery, Jim Crow, and DOMA we're also laws at one point, so was the Supreme Court still a consistent body, or do and did they have some activism in them?

And that's contract, should the government have the power to tell you what contract you should be able to engage in (as long as your not hurting or stealing) or are they to act as a witness and enforcement of the contract? Should the government ever have had the power to say that gays cannot marry?

The SCOTUS is just as fallible as the other branches of government which is why we have checks and balances.

DOMA was an example of legislating intolerant moral values per the OP. The SCOTUS decision was made so that the states could repeal their own state legislated intolerant moral values on SSM. That one circuit court made the wrong call is an example of how the checks and balances work. The end result was the elimination of the state legislated intolerant moral values nationwide.

As far as the government having the right to regulate marriage contracts, yes it does under the Constitution. There is a movement to deregulate the government of We the People based upon the fallacy that both people and corporations will do the right thing without a central governing authority. Reality proves that is never the case. It simply doesn't work that way because human nature requires laws in order to have a civilized society.

The only question is the degree to which those laws should be made. To date the laws that we have are towards an ever more tolerant society that treats everyone equally. Removing them will reverse that trend and result in pockets of bigotry and discrimination. That is inevitable and per the OP it might sound great in principle back in practice it is a disaster.

Since you mentioned Jim Crow that is a classic example of allowing states to impose their own "tolerance" laws. It took the intervention of the central government to eliminate the Jim Crow laws and expose them for the intolerance that they were in reality.

 

[Esmeralda]

On what basis of the Constitution does or should give the federal government authority to dictate to the people of Muleshoe TX what values and moral principles must guide their common lives together?

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

They aren't? I'm seeing a lot of arguments here that are saying exactly that.

Where? Where are the posts in this thread that say people are not allowed to have their opinions or beliefs?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Yes it is discrimination if you are willing to bake wedding cakes for straight couples, but not willing to bake them for gay couples. No, it is not discrimination to have laws protecting people from being discriminated against.

I see. So your definition of non discrimination is requiring the business owner to serve a customer no matter how offensive or immoral or unethical he believes a product ordered is or the activity in which he is required to participate?

If I have a lawn mowing business and I mow the grass at a Baptist Church, and am in no way participating in their religion.

I agree. But if you have a problem with those Baptists and don't want your name or your business associated with them by being on their premises, you should have every right to refuse to accept their business. I, for instance, would not be mowing the Westboro Baptist's lawn.

Then why do you feel a baker is participating in gay activities, simply for baking and assembling a cake?

His name and his business establishment is involved with that cake. Modern wedding cakes aren't baked and picked up at the baker anymore. They are baked in pieces and then assembled and the final decorations applied at the reception hall. So the baker's truck is there, he is there, and that makes him participating in the event.

If I have a lawn mowing business, and I'm on the property of the Baptist Church, and have my truck parked right out in front, does that mean I'm participating in their events?

Of course it doesn't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

What happened under Jim Crow when the states were able to legislate their own intolerance towards blacks and prevent them from voting, living where they wanted, going to school, etc, etc?

In essence that is what the OP topic is saying should be allowed to happen because if tolerance is a "two way street" then racists should be allowed to legislate their racism just as the states were allowed to legislate their bigotry against gays.

And yes, both of those instances were done under the guise of "morals and values".

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

What happened under Jim Crow when the states were able to legislate their own intolerance towards blacks and prevent them from voting, living where they wanted, going to school, etc, etc?

In essence that is what the OP topic is saying should be allowed to happen because if tolerance is a "two way street" then racists should be allowed to legislate their racism just as the states were allowed to legislate their bigotry against gays.

And yes, both of those instances were done under the guise of "morals and values".

Well, I'll just file this post under the category of the point being missed entirely plus introduction of a straw man argument that nobody has proposed.

 

[Debra K]

He's allowed to see it any way he wants. He is not allowed to break laws.

The OP expressly states that existing law is not to be used as an argument in this thread. So what the existing law is is immaterial to the OP and the concepts being argued. Thanks for understanding.

But I believe there should be laws.

The fact is, current laws are integral to this question. Our laws are formed by the majority. In a republic, majority rules. Though each person does not individually vote on each law, the process of government officials being elected by the majority vote to act for us means that the laws they make are majority rule laws. In a republic, in a free society, individuals do not get to use private 'laws' except on a purely personal level, not when they deal with the public at large.

We are a constitutional republic, meaning we (supposably) impose negative rights on our government such as government shall make no law concerning such and such. We run into problems when we see something we do not like, and use government to shut it down. Granting government greater power to infringe on those negative rights we are also suppose to impose on it. We do this bc as humans we constantly fall into the line of thinking that the people in charge are smarter and know better than us, and that they should lay out the rules for everyone. This is when government starts becoming self serving

And to put this into the perspective of the OP, once the government becomes self serving, more and more the government chooses who will be the beneficiary of tolerance and who will not. And once tolerance ceases to be a two way street allowing all non violent points of view to be expressed, liberty is out the window.

Here we have the dilemma. How can tolerance be a two-way street when members of a particular community espouse opposing viewpoints? How do you propose a small town in Texas should decide which viewpoint prevails? Are you advocating pure democracy and it's correlative "tyranny of the majority" rule? or do people who disagree with the law get exemptions?

Let's say the majority of the electorate in a small town vote for a local ordinance that forbids discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation. For the sake of "tolerance", will a local bakery business owner be granted an exemption from the law based on her religious views and be allowed to discriminate against homosexual couples? How about the owner of a diner who believes that God made white men superior to black men? does he get an exemption from the law and the right to close his business doors to black people? If we carve out exemptions to the law for people who don't agree with it, why pass the law in the first place?

If one segment of society must tolerate the intolerance of another segment of society, how can there possibly exist a "two way street"? It is an oxymoron.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Ah so SCOTUS is supreme, and therefore unquestionable. Which is odd because when they struck down DOMA 2 years ago, SCOTUS said that it is a states right issue and states should have the power to choose. But a couple of months ago they disagreed with their previous ruling saying states shall have no say in the matter, and gay marriage is the law of the land. If it sounds inconsistent its because it is inconsistent. How can you trust an inconsistent body to ok laws (recently they have been in the business of rewriting laws so they can be passed, for which they have no business of doing, e.g. Recent ACA ruling).

The real trick that we all seemed to miss is that we let government define yet again what is marriage, which is a religious institution. I thought we had the freedom of religion and that government shall make no law? So if my religion or beliefs allow me to marry the same sex, or multiple partners, I should be allowed to do so, should I not?

There was nothing inconsistent in what the SCOTUS did with DOMA.

Their initial ruling was valid and everything was fine until one of the Circuit courts made an inconsistent ruling with the DOMA ruling. At that point the SCOTUS had an obligation to step back in and clarify their ruling, which they did, and it was entirely consistent with their initial ruling on DOMA.

Furthermore marriage in not a religious institution. Marriage is a state contract. Holy Matrimony is a religious institution that incorporates the state marriage contract.

There is no "freedom of religion" when it comes to state marriage contracts since people of all religions and none at all are allowed to get married.

They went against states rights...which was the original argument for striking down DOMA...so despite the reasoning for that, it still remains inconsistent. Not to mention the Supreme Court is rewriting and re-wording laws which is not their place, it's the legislative branches place. Not to mention that slavery, Jim Crow, and DOMA we're also laws at one point, so was the Supreme Court still a consistent body, or do and did they have some activism in them?

And that's contract, should the government have the power to tell you what contract you should be able to engage in (as long as your not hurting or stealing) or are they to act as a witness and enforcement of the contract? Should the government ever have had the power to say that gays cannot marry?

The SCOTUS is just as fallible as the other branches of government which is why we have checks and balances.

DOMA was an example of legislating intolerant moral values per the OP. The SCOTUS decision was made so that the states could repeal their own state legislated intolerant moral values on SSM. That one circuit court made the wrong call is an example of how the checks and balances work. The end result was the elimination of the state legislated intolerant moral values nationwide.

As far as the government having the right to regulate marriage contracts, yes it does under the Constitution. There is a movement to deregulate the government of We the People based upon the fallacy that both people and corporations will do the right thing without a central governing authority. Reality proves that is never the case. It simply doesn't work that way because human nature requires laws in order to have a civilized society.

The only question is the degree to which those laws should be made. To date the laws that we have are towards an ever more tolerant society that treats everyone equally. Removing them will reverse that trend and result in pockets of bigotry and discrimination. That is inevitable and per the OP it might sound great in principle back in practice it is a disaster.

Since you mentioned Jim Crow that is a classic example of allowing states to impose their own "tolerance" laws. It took the intervention of the central government to eliminate the Jim Crow laws and expose them for the intolerance that they were in reality.

States and local jurisdictions are at liberty to enact laws and measures, provided they comport with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

What happened under Jim Crow when the states were able to legislate their own intolerance towards blacks and prevent them from voting, living where they wanted, going to school, etc, etc?

In essence that is what the OP topic is saying should be allowed to happen because if tolerance is a "two way street" then racists should be allowed to legislate their racism just as the states were allowed to legislate their bigotry against gays.

And yes, both of those instances were done under the guise of "morals and values".

Well, I'll just file this post under the category of the point being missed entirely plus introduction of a straw man argument that nobody has proposed.

Really?

It directly references both "tolerance" and "two way street" from the OP and it links back to many of your own posts on "morals and values" and on top of that it provides relevant examples of what is likely to happen under the "new law" that is proposed by the OP topic.

How exactly does it "miss the point"?

 

[sakinago]

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Ah so SCOTUS is supreme, and therefore unquestionable. Which is odd because when they struck down DOMA 2 years ago, SCOTUS said that it is a states right issue and states should have the power to choose. But a couple of months ago they disagreed with their previous ruling saying states shall have no say in the matter, and gay marriage is the law of the land. If it sounds inconsistent its because it is inconsistent. How can you trust an inconsistent body to ok laws (recently they have been in the business of rewriting laws so they can be passed, for which they have no business of doing, e.g. Recent ACA ruling).

The real trick that we all seemed to miss is that we let government define yet again what is marriage, which is a religious institution. I thought we had the freedom of religion and that government shall make no law? So if my religion or beliefs allow me to marry the same sex, or multiple partners, I should be allowed to do so, should I not?

There was nothing inconsistent in what the SCOTUS did with DOMA.

Their initial ruling was valid and everything was fine until one of the Circuit courts made an inconsistent ruling with the DOMA ruling. At that point the SCOTUS had an obligation to step back in and clarify their ruling, which they did, and it was entirely consistent with their initial ruling on DOMA.

Furthermore marriage in not a religious institution. Marriage is a state contract. Holy Matrimony is a religious institution that incorporates the state marriage contract.

There is no "freedom of religion" when it comes to state marriage contracts since people of all religions and none at all are allowed to get married.

They went against states rights...which was the original argument for striking down DOMA...so despite the reasoning for that, it still remains inconsistent. Not to mention the Supreme Court is rewriting and re-wording laws which is not their place, it's the legislative branches place. Not to mention that slavery, Jim Crow, and DOMA we're also laws at one point, so was the Supreme Court still a consistent body, or do and did they have some activism in them?

And that's contract, should the government have the power to tell you what contract you should be able to engage in (as long as your not hurting or stealing) or are they to act as a witness and enforcement of the contract? Should the government ever have had the power to say that gays cannot marry?

The SCOTUS is just as fallible as the other branches of government which is why we have checks and balances.

DOMA was an example of legislating intolerant moral values per the OP. The SCOTUS decision was made so that the states could repeal their own state legislated intolerant moral values on SSM. That one circuit court made the wrong call is an example of how the checks and balances work. The end result was the elimination of the state legislated intolerant moral values nationwide.

As far as the government having the right to regulate marriage contracts, yes it does under the Constitution. There is a movement to deregulate the government of We the People based upon the fallacy that both people and corporations will do the right thing without a central governing authority. Reality proves that is never the case. It simply doesn't work that way because human nature requires laws in order to have a civilized society.

The only question is the degree to which those laws should be made. To date the laws that we have are towards an ever more tolerant society that treats everyone equally. Removing them will reverse that trend and result in pockets of bigotry and discrimination. That is inevitable and per the OP it might sound great in principle back in practice it is a disaster.

Since you mentioned Jim Crow that is a classic example of allowing states to impose their own "tolerance" laws. It took the intervention of the central government to eliminate the Jim Crow laws and expose them for the intolerance that they were in reality.

You misrepresent my point. I never said get rid of the government, there is a need of government, but laws should not exist in cases of if it is not hurting anyone, or stealing from anyone, then there should not be a law made. We are to a nation of laws, not men. And you seem to champion the government by saying people just seem to keep getting it wrong by themselves, right after we both cited some very clear examples on how government gets it very very wrong. The biggest atrocities in the world have been carried out by governments with great power. And we can look at Switzerland, which we are heavily based off of, we're people have been the freedom to be left to their own devices. They have been doing it for 500 years, and have been living quite happily, safely, have a great education system, are very wealthy, with a high standard of living, and lots and lots of citizens with guns. This is one of the few counties that is in the vein of a Jeffersonian liberal, and it is one of the oldest and most successful government.s in the world

And the system of checks and balance only works when it is being followed. I cited the ruling on ACA as an example of the SCOTUS practicing legislation, there is also the abuse of executive orders (been going on for a long time) and was originally intended for things like ordering new china for the White House, or making it Hawaiian tshirt Friday for the WH staff. Definitly not intended to be able to effect American lives. Checks and balances also disappear when government has the ability to selectively enforce the laws, (e.g. Ignoring immigration laws). Like I said before we are to be a nation of laws not men.

Thirdly, we lose power when government is allowed to overstep it's bounds in things like issuing a marriage license. Before the progressive movement, it was just a contract, but then the progressive movement came, and we can't have whites marrying blacks bc that just wrong, so we need to put in place a system where we can have a gatekeeper, who can refuse to issue a license to marry these interracial couples

 

[Foxfyre]

The OP expressly states that existing law is not to be used as an argument in this thread. So what the existing law is is immaterial to the OP and the concepts being argued. Thanks for understanding.

But I believe there should be laws.

The fact is, current laws are integral to this question. Our laws are formed by the majority. In a republic, majority rules. Though each person does not individually vote on each law, the process of government officials being elected by the majority vote to act for us means that the laws they make are majority rule laws. In a republic, in a free society, individuals do not get to use private 'laws' except on a purely personal level, not when they deal with the public at large.

We are a constitutional republic, meaning we (supposably) impose negative rights on our government such as government shall make no law concerning such and such. We run into problems when we see something we do not like, and use government to shut it down. Granting government greater power to infringe on those negative rights we are also suppose to impose on it. We do this bc as humans we constantly fall into the line of thinking that the people in charge are smarter and know better than us, and that they should lay out the rules for everyone. This is when government starts becoming self serving

And to put this into the perspective of the OP, once the government becomes self serving, more and more the government chooses who will be the beneficiary of tolerance and who will not. And once tolerance ceases to be a two way street allowing all non violent points of view to be expressed, liberty is out the window.

Here we have the dilemma. How can tolerance be a two-way street when members of a particular community espouse opposing viewpoints? How do you propose a small town in Texas should decide which viewpoint prevails? Are you advocating pure democracy and it's correlative "tyranny of the majority" rule? or do people who disagree with the law get exemptions?

Let's say the majority of the electorate in a small town vote for a local ordinance that forbids discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation. For the sake of "tolerance", will a local bakery business owner be granted an exemption from the law based on her religious views and be allowed to discriminate against homosexual couples? How about the owner of a diner who believes that God made white men superior to black men? does he get an exemption from the law and the right to close his business doors to black people? If we carve out exemptions to the law for people who don't agree with it, why pass the law in the first place?

If one segment of society must tolerate the intolerance of another segment of society, how can there possibly exist a "two way street"? It is an oxymoron.

Again nobody has suggested or is suggesting that discrimination against any person be the norm or rule--that would make an excellent debate for another thread but it is not the thesis of this thread.

The thesis of this thread is based on the concept of liberty that nobody has the right to dictate to somebody else what they MUST think or believe about anything or how he/she will be required to live. On a more narrow basis it also includes the ability of a person to exercise his/her personal beliefs or convictions and choose whether he/she will provide a particular product or participate in a particular activity. And he/she should be able to make such choices and speak his/her convictions and beliefs without fear of some angry mob organizing to physically and/or materially punish him/her.

So yes, so long as another person is not forcing his/her intolerance on somebody else, we should be tolerant of another person's unacceptable views to the extent that such person is allowed to have and speak them in peace. An unalienable right requires no participation or contribution from any other person to exercise. And so long as our expressed views require no participation or contribution from any other, we should be allowed to have and express them in peace and without fear of retribution.

That is what tolerance looks like to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

What happened under Jim Crow when the states were able to legislate their own intolerance towards blacks and prevent them from voting, living where they wanted, going to school, etc, etc?

In essence that is what the OP topic is saying should be allowed to happen because if tolerance is a "two way street" then racists should be allowed to legislate their racism just as the states were allowed to legislate their bigotry against gays.

And yes, both of those instances were done under the guise of "morals and values".

Well, I'll just file this post under the category of the point being missed entirely plus introduction of a straw man argument that nobody has proposed.

Really?

It directly references both "tolerance" and "two way street" from the OP and it links back to many of your own posts on "morals and values" and on top of that it provides relevant examples of what is likely to happen under the "new law" that is proposed by the OP topic.

How exactly does it "miss the point"?

Re-read the OP please. If you don't figure it out, I am quite sure I am not intelligent enough to explain it sufficently for you to understand and won't even try.

 

[Esmeralda]

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

What happened under Jim Crow when the states were able to legislate their own intolerance towards blacks and prevent them from voting, living where they wanted, going to school, etc, etc?

In essence that is what the OP topic is saying should be allowed to happen because if tolerance is a "two way street" then racists should be allowed to legislate their racism just as the states were allowed to legislate their bigotry against gays.

And yes, both of those instances were done under the guise of "morals and values".

Well, I'll just file this post under the category of the point being missed entirely plus introduction of a straw man argument that nobody has proposed.

He has not created a strawman nor is he missing the point of the OP. And I am reporting you for harrassing this particular poster. It is at least the 3rd time in this thread where you have clearly targeted this poster for abuse.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

What happened under Jim Crow when the states were able to legislate their own intolerance towards blacks and prevent them from voting, living where they wanted, going to school, etc, etc?

In essence that is what the OP topic is saying should be allowed to happen because if tolerance is a "two way street" then racists should be allowed to legislate their racism just as the states were allowed to legislate their bigotry against gays.

And yes, both of those instances were done under the guise of "morals and values".

Well, I'll just file this post under the category of the point being missed entirely plus introduction of a straw man argument that nobody has proposed.

He has not created a strawman nor is he missing the point of the OP. And I am reporting you for harrassing this particular poster. It is at least the 3rd time in this thread where you have clearly targeted this poster for abuse.

Go for it. I'm pretty secure of my position on that.