Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Nosmo King]

The key to the defense of discrimination is getting the rest of us to actually believe that wedding vendors are "participants" in the wedding. This is the slender reed upon which those who want to discriminate hang their entire argument, and it's ridiculous.

If this was truly the case, we must then believe that wedding vendors are the same as invited guests or members of the wedding party itself. Along with the services normally provided, is each wedding vendor expected to dance at the reception? Be served a meal there? Bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper, or deposit an envelope of cash in a bridal purse?

 

[Foxfyre]

The baker normally provides cakes for weddings that he/she believes are weddings. The race or religion of the participants has no bearing on that. But if the baker has religious convictions against two women marrying and believes that to be wrong, the baker should have the right to believe that and not participate in that event. The baker has no right to refuse his products and services offered to the general public and that would include his gay customers. But he should be able to decline serving anybody, straight or gay, that requires participation in an activity or event that he does not wish to participate.

Why is that so threatening to anybody?

Now you are sort of moving the goalposts Foxie - to what "he/she believes are weddings". People who used to oppose interracial marriage used religion as a basis for their view. They did not consider interracial marriage to be valid.

Does a baker have the right to refuse to provide a product to an interracial wedding based on the race of it's participants because he believes it to be wrong?

I think you are also contradicting yourself here: "The baker has no right to refuse his products and services offered to the general public and that would include his gay customers" and "But if the baker has religious convictions against two women marrying and believes that to be wrong, the baker should have the right to believe that and not participate in that event"

If a business provides cakes for weddings and routinely delivers them - then that is his product - the product he offers to the general public.

No I insist that I have been 100% consistent even with those who ignore my arguments and try to change my arguments into something I have not said. If the baker believes a 'gay wedding' is not a real wedding, that is his right to believe. That was used simply as an illustration of one of thousands of reasons the baker might use to choose not to participate in the activity or event.

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems that wedding vendors who require a certain level of moral comportment from their clients are doing two things that exploit good thing to serve a bad purpose.

First, they claim their religion prohibits commerce with homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and never in my faith has the minister ever admonished the congregants to avoid commercial dealings with homosexuals. Rather, in my faith, we are taught to love one another as we would love ourselves. We are taught to judge not, lest we be judged. And we are taught to not cast the first stone unless we ourselves are free of sin. Those are the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

But some sects have found an obscure bit of scripture written by Paul to admonish people from sin..Suddenly, this scrap of scripture has been elevated to serve as an aegis to perpetuate hate, fear and hurtful stereotypes. This is using a beautiful and loving and forgiving faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if that is not warped enough, these same self-styled Christians are claiming that the constitution protects them as they discriminate. This is using an amendment designed to protect citizens from religious repression in order to repress on religious grounds. Again, using a grand idea to serve a bad purpose.

No Nosmo. They never said their religion prohibits commerce with homosexuals. That would indeed be discrimination for which there is no justification.

They routinely accommodated the same gay people who routinely came into their store. There is no indication they discriminated against anybody due to sex, race, sexual orientation etc. at any time.

But just as I adore you and would cheerfully welcome you into my home or enjoy your company in most venues, if you asked me to provide decorations on a cake I had moral scruples against or wanted me to participate in an activity or event I did not want to participate in or attend, I would most likely decline just as you would if I asked you to participate in something you found offensive or otherwise not your cup of tea. That would in no way be disrespecting you or discriminating against you in any way or denying you your right to that activity or event.

What do you imagine a same sex wedding cake looks like? I'm guessing something like this:

It's the same cake normally offered by any bakery. There's nothing torrid or lewd about it. There'
s nothing out of the ordinary that might put the immortal soul of any baker in danger.

And that baker is not a participant in the wedding. The baker supplies a service, nothing more.

 

[Coyote]

The baker normally provides cakes for weddings that he/she believes are weddings. The race or religion of the participants has no bearing on that. But if the baker has religious convictions against two women marrying and believes that to be wrong, the baker should have the right to believe that and not participate in that event. The baker has no right to refuse his products and services offered to the general public and that would include his gay customers. But he should be able to decline serving anybody, straight or gay, that requires participation in an activity or event that he does not wish to participate.

Why is that so threatening to anybody?

Now you are sort of moving the goalposts Foxie - to what "he/she believes are weddings". People who used to oppose interracial marriage used religion as a basis for their view. They did not consider interracial marriage to be valid.

Does a baker have the right to refuse to provide a product to an interracial wedding based on the race of it's participants because he believes it to be wrong?

I think you are also contradicting yourself here: "The baker has no right to refuse his products and services offered to the general public and that would include his gay customers" and "But if the baker has religious convictions against two women marrying and believes that to be wrong, the baker should have the right to believe that and not participate in that event"

If a business provides cakes for weddings and routinely delivers them - then that is his product - the product he offers to the general public.

No I insist that I have been 100% consistent even with those who ignore my arguments and try to change my arguments into something I have not said. If the baker believes a 'gay wedding' is not a real wedding, that is his right to believe. That was used simply as an illustration of one of thousands of reasons the baker might use to choose not to participate in the activity or event.

It is his right to believe but does that mean it's his right to refuse to provide a product to those customers?

I'm going to bring it down to race again because really this issue is very similar and these question keeps getting ignored:

• Does he then have a right to refuse to provide services to an interracial couple because he believes interracial marriage is morally wrong?
• Can a hotel then refuse to rent rooms to blacks because the owner finds it offensive and doesn't want to "participate" in allowing blacks and whites to share the same establishment?
• Is there any difference between the baker's argument and these arguments?
• What happens when so many people believe this that the group who is has trouble finding a business that will serve them?

 

[Foxfyre]

The key to the defense of discrimination is getting the rest of us to actually believe that wedding vendors are "participants" in the wedding. This is the slender reed upon which those who want to discriminate hang their entire argument, and it's ridiculous.

If this was truly the case, we must then believe that wedding vendors are the same as invited guests or members of the wedding party itself. Along with the services normally provided, is each wedding vendor expected to dance at the reception? Be served a meal there? Bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper, or deposit an envelope of cash in a bridal purse?

This is true. Some want to split hairs and separate 'activity' from 'event'. And many if not most arguing in opposition to my argument have changed what I have argued into something easier for them to attack.

But the fact is, if you are required to go to a particular venue, provide a special product for it, provide a service for it, you are participating and/or contributing to the activity or event. Nobody should be forced to do that against their will for any reason other than essential contractual services such as would be required of police officers or firefighters, etc. Nobody's rights are being violated if I allow others their gay wedding in peace but choose not to attend it. Nobody's rights are being violated if I choose not to participate in it with special products or services either. My rights are not violated if the gay couple chooses to snub me and order their cake elsewhere.

I am arguing that everybody be allowed to be who and what they are and live their lives and conduct their businesses as they choose in peace short of violating anybody else's right. And I have no right whatsoever to demand that anybody, even a baker or florist or photographer or caterer or wedding singer, participate in my wedding if they choose not to do so.

 

[Dante]

on edit:

Defending discriminating against people as a class is always difficult to do unless one just comes right out and says so. But when the honest route is taken it exposes the argument for what it is -- bigotry, fear, anger, and hate.

When people decide they don't like another person as an individual that is one thing, but when one steps over the line into condemning an individual as belonging to a class of people there is only one honest way to view that.

Now we know people are often in denial. Denial implies a knowledge of something that one pushes away.

Tolerance? Can it be taken too far? What about intolerance of intolerance? If we were to tolerate everything we'd have anarchy. When one becomes intolerant of intolerance what is the distinction there?

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems that wedding vendors who require a certain level of moral comportment from their clients are doing two things that exploit good thing to serve a bad purpose.

First, they claim their religion prohibits commerce with homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and never in my faith has the minister ever admonished the congregants to avoid commercial dealings with homosexuals. Rather, in my faith, we are taught to love one another as we would love ourselves. We are taught to judge not, lest we be judged. And we are taught to not cast the first stone unless we ourselves are free of sin. Those are the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

But some sects have found an obscure bit of scripture written by Paul to admonish people from sin..Suddenly, this scrap of scripture has been elevated to serve as an aegis to perpetuate hate, fear and hurtful stereotypes. This is using a beautiful and loving and forgiving faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if that is not warped enough, these same self-styled Christians are claiming that the constitution protects them as they discriminate. This is using an amendment designed to protect citizens from religious repression in order to repress on religious grounds. Again, using a grand idea to serve a bad purpose.

No Nosmo. They never said their religion prohibits commerce with homosexuals. That would indeed be discrimination for which there is no justification.

They routinely accommodated the same gay people who routinely came into their store. There is no indication they discriminated against anybody due to sex, race, sexual orientation etc. at any time.

But just as I adore you and would cheerfully welcome you into my home or enjoy your company in most venues, if you asked me to provide decorations on a cake I had moral scruples against or wanted me to participate in an activity or event I did not want to participate in or attend, I would most likely decline just as you would if I asked you to participate in something you found offensive or otherwise not your cup of tea. That would in no way be disrespecting you or discriminating against you in any way or denying you your right to that activity or event.

What do you imagine a same sex wedding cake looks like? I'm guessing something like this:

It's the same cake normally offered by any bakery. There's nothing torrid or lewd about it. There'
s nothing out of the ordinary that might put the immortal soul of any baker in danger.

And that baker is not a participant in the wedding. The baker supplies a service, nothing more.

It doesn't matter what it looks like. The principle remains the same.

If a person must be on premises to deliver or set up and finish decorating the cake, if his business vehicle is parked in the parking lot for all to see, if his business name is on the receipt, he is participating in and contributing to the event. He should have the right not to do that if he chooses not to do that.

I will remind everybody that I have no personal reasons not to attend or be part of gay weddings and have attended and participated in gay friends' weddings. I am not arguing out of personal prejudices here, but rather for a specific principle that frankly a lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand or acknowledge. And I think that is unfortunate.

 

[Dante]

What do you imagine a same sex wedding cake looks like? I'm guessing something like this:

It's the same cake normally offered by any bakery. There's nothing torrid or lewd about it. There'
s nothing out of the ordinary that might put the immortal soul of any baker in danger.

And that baker is not a participant in the wedding. The baker supplies a service, nothing more.

I believe you are on to something here. I remember joking about what makes a wedding cake gay cake. Is it the flower, the icing, the little figures they put on top?

 

[Dante]

Foxfyre

again I ask:
If a Pizza delivery girl delivers a few pizzas to a stag party is she attending the event? If a pizza delivery boy delivers pizza to a group of people partying while watching the Super Bowl, has the delivery person attended the party?

It doesn't matter what it looks like. The principle remains the same.

If a person must be on premises to deliver or set up and finish decorating the cake, if his business vehicle is parked in the parking lot for all to see, if his business name is on the receipt, he is participating in and contributing to the event. He should have the right not to do that if he chooses not to do that.

I will remind everybody that I have no personal reasons not to attend or be part of gay weddings and have attended and participated in gay friends' weddings. I am not arguing out of personal prejudices here, but rather for a specific principle that frankly a lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand or acknowledge. And I think that is unfortunate.

In what way are the delivery persons participating in and contributing to the stag party or Super Bowl party?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should I not have the right to choose to provide products and services for the gay wedding and decline providing products and services to the Westboro Baptist event bashing gays?

Why should I not have the right to provide products and services for your tailgate party but refuse to provide products and services for your organized dog fight?

I am not discriminating against gays or Baptists or you in any respect. I am refusing to participate in an event or activity that I cannot or choose not to participate.

THAT should be anybody's right to do for any reason.

You say being forced to provide an 'offensive' product for an activity or be present at an event is not participation or contribution. I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that.

The Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church buy goods and services every day. They buy goods to use in their hate-filled events.

Suppose the family of a dead war veteran who's funeral was being disrupted by the Christians had a store, and in that store on the day of the funeral in question, an employee denied a product or service to the Westboro Church Christians. Do you think any rational person would call that a case of discrimination against Christians or a sect of Christianity?

I don't think a business should deny Westboro Baptists who came into the store to buy a product or service normally offered by the business. But certainly if the businessman did not wish to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist anti-gay event, he should be able to exercise his choice with impunity. And no, that would not be discriminating against Christians or any Westboro Baptist member. It would be choosing not to participate in an event or activity.

Did you just insert "anti-gay event" in place of "a dead war veteran's funeral" because if you did, this is cause for concern here.

Or did you just address two separate things: one being the specific example I posted, and the other being a different example?

please clarify and maybe rewrite your answer/post.

I was perfectly clear in my remarks and I choose not to rewrite them to suit you. Thanks anyway.

I have reported this and have asked for clarification of what constitutes a violation of the rules.

Fine. The rules are pretty specific I think. But if I am in violation of my own rules I am happy to take my lumps.

The topic is pretty specific, however, and I am doing my damndest to focus on that and not on the individual members in the thread.

 

[Nosmo King]

The key to the defense of discrimination is getting the rest of us to actually believe that wedding vendors are "participants" in the wedding. This is the slender reed upon which those who want to discriminate hang their entire argument, and it's ridiculous.

If this was truly the case, we must then believe that wedding vendors are the same as invited guests or members of the wedding party itself. Along with the services normally provided, is each wedding vendor expected to dance at the reception? Be served a meal there? Bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper, or deposit an envelope of cash in a bridal purse?

This is true. Some want to split hairs and separate 'activity' from 'event'. And many if not most arguing in opposition to my argument have changed what I have argued into something easier for them to attack.

But the fact is, if you are required to go to a particular venue, provide a special product for it, provide a service for it, you are participating and/or contributing to the activity or event. Nobody should be forced to do that against their will for any reason other than essential contractual services such as would be required of police officers or firefighters, etc. Nobody's rights are being violated if I allow others their gay wedding in peace but choose not to attend it. Nobody's rights are being violated if I choose not to participate in it with special products or services either. My rights are not violated if the gay couple chooses to snub me and order their cake elsewhere.

I am arguing that everybody be allowed to be who and what they are and live their lives and conduct their businesses as they choose in peace short of violating anybody else's right. And I have no right whatsoever to demand that anybody, even a baker or florist or photographer or caterer or wedding singer, participate in my wedding if they choose not to do so.

I think it was Dante who posed a situation. You are a pizza delivery person who has been contracted to bring four pepperoni pizzas to a dormitory. you arrive, pizzas in hand and smell the acrid odor of marijuana smoke. Are you "participating" in the party, or is it just your responsibility to deliver the pies and leave?

And does every wedding vendor morally vet their clients? There may be an adulterer getting married, but as it is a heterosexual wedding, should that vendor refuse services? What about a ceremony for two people who inadequately honor their parents? Or a wedding of a mafia princess whose father kills people? Or a wedding on a Sunday afternoon? Isn't that failing to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

These are all sins specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality, however, is not mentioned there.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What do you imagine a same sex wedding cake looks like? I'm guessing something like this:

It's the same cake normally offered by any bakery. There's nothing torrid or lewd about it. There'
s nothing out of the ordinary that might put the immortal soul of any baker in danger.

And that baker is not a participant in the wedding. The baker supplies a service, nothing more.

I believe you are on to something here. I remember joking about what makes a wedding cake gay cake. Is it the flower, the icing, the little figures they put on top?

Good point!

All wedding cakes look "gay" and yet heterosexuals have never had a problem with "gay" looking wedding cakes at their events, not even those who hold "beliefs" that gays are "immoral".

What if the cake was decorated or delivered by someone who was gay?

Per the OP does this mean that a gay person has "participated and contributed" to the wedding of people who hold "beliefs" that gays are "immoral"?

Oh dear, this "new law" line for the OP becomes ever more blurry.

 

[Coyote]

What do you imagine a same sex wedding cake looks like? I'm guessing something like this:

It's the same cake normally offered by any bakery. There's nothing torrid or lewd about it. There'
s nothing out of the ordinary that might put the immortal soul of any baker in danger.

And that baker is not a participant in the wedding. The baker supplies a service, nothing more.

I believe you are on to something here. I remember joking about what makes a wedding cake gay cake. Is it the flower, the icing, the little figures they put on top?

Good point!

All wedding cakes look "gay" and yet heterosexuals have never had a problem with "gay" looking wedding cakes at their events, not even those who hold "beliefs" that gays are "immoral".

What if the cake was decorated or delivered by someone who was gay?

Per the OP does this mean that a gay person has "participated and contributed" to the wedding of people who hold "beliefs" that gays are "immoral"?

Oh dear, this "new law" line for the OP becomes ever more blurry.

You're edging into trolling DT.....

 

[Dante]

This thread is not about political parties or religious issues or scientific purity, or gay rights, or race relations, or a 'war on women', or Donald Trump or abortion or any other hot button issue of the day. Any of these can be used as illustration to discuss the thread topic, but we won't be debating them again in this thread. There are many threads already created to debate such subjects.

This thread is about what we Americans consider to be freedom and what we should and should not be willing to allow others who live among us to be, to think, to believe, to say.

For example only:

Probably most Americans believe homosexuality is a natural human condition and believe gay people have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose. But should Americans who don't believe homosexuality to be a natural human condition and who chose not to be party to what they define as the 'gay lifestyle' also have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans believe in the theory of natural selection and want that taught as science and they also want the right to reject creationism and intelligent design as scientific concepts. But should Americans who embrace creationism and intelligent design be able to include that in science class in their schools? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Abortion is a fact of American life and probably most Americans want at least some abortion to be legal and a matter of choice. But should Americans who believe abortion to be murder of a human life be allowed that point of view with impunity? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans would not get their nose out of joint if Megyn Kelly had suggested Donald Trump was driven by an overdose of testosterone and male arrogance. But a lot of people are apoplectic over Donald Trump referring to Megyn Kelly as 'hormonal' et al. If we truly believe in equality of the sexes, can we believe women are too fragile to be subject to implied misogyny while men are immune to sexist references?

I hope you see where I am going with this.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any USMB member or any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

2. For purposes of this discussion only, if there is any question or dispute re definitions used, the OP will define the word or term.

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

The poll is set up so members can change their answers if they change their mind.

Is listing what the thread is NOT about a rule?

If ones list what the thread is about and then goes on to add what it is not about I would assume that is a restriction, a rule.

Then we get to three listed rules.

I count 4 rules which is a violation of rules policy\

---

I want to also note that C_Clayton_Jones wrote "There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a contrivance of the right, the consequence of disdain for free and open debate in our free and democratic society." and that is not a matter of semantics as was claimed. A claim in and of itself is not factual and calling an argument against a premise semantics is a violation of common sense.

The Sons of Liberty often attacked loyal colonists for speech they found offensive. They later demanded loyalty oaths and confiscated property and guns of those who refused. So what the OP views as enforcement of politically correct views and speech is as American as as it gets.

On what grounds, what foundation does the OP rest her case? On what authority?

The above is not an argument about what any law should or should not be. So how in the world can it be construed as a violation of house rules or the OP's prerogatives?

 

[Dante]

Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace". Most certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion or point of view. As a general matter, everyone is entitled to live their own lives according to their own morals. However, actions (conduct) have consequences. For instance, when a person chooses to enter the business world and open their doors to the public to conduct business ... they should do so with the understanding that "the public" includes everyone ... even persons whom the business owner doesn't want to serve based on the business owner's private views. I don't think we can live side by side in peace if discrimination in public accommodations is sanctioned.

But doesn't it hinge on what the definition of discrimination is? A business owner should have the right to expect a level of decency, appropriate dress, and conduct in his place of business and should be able to set the rules for what that will be as well as the products and/or services he chooses to provide. I have no problem with an anti-discrimination law above and beyond that if the community social contract decides on that policy. But in the name of non discrimination, the business owner should not have to prepare a porkless product just because some customers wants that or to provide pork in a product just because some want that even as the business owner should be free to do that if he chooses to do that. The business owner should not have to decorate or provide a product that is offensive to the business owner just because a customer wants that. And the business owner should not be required to participate in activities the business owner choose not to participate in.

Non discrimination should never be interpreted that everything must be tolerated by the business owner.

If you are open for business then you don't get to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs unless your business specifically caters only to one religion and openly advertises itself as doing so.

A Kosher butchery won't stock certain meat products and it cannot be compelled to sell what it doesn't stock nor can it be compelled to stock those items. But if the owner refused to sell what he does stock to anyone who walks in the door on the basis that they don't belong to his religion then he is violating the law.

So no, the OP's position is a violation of the Law of the Land and until it is changed a business owner must give equal service to all customers irrespective of the owner's own personal beliefs.

I suggest you re-read the OP and try again. The existing law of the land has absolutely no role in this discussion.

agreed

 

[Dante]

This thread is not about political parties or religious issues or scientific purity, or gay rights, or race relations, or a 'war on women', or Donald Trump or abortion or any other hot button issue of the day. Any of these can be used as illustration to discuss the thread topic, but we won't be debating them again in this thread. There are many threads already created to debate such subjects.

This thread is about what we Americans consider to be freedom and what we should and should not be willing to allow others who live among us to be, to think, to believe, to say.

For example only:

Probably most Americans believe homosexuality is a natural human condition and believe gay people have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose. But should Americans who don't believe homosexuality to be a natural human condition and who chose not to be party to what they define as the 'gay lifestyle' also have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans believe in the theory of natural selection and want that taught as science and they also want the right to reject creationism and intelligent design as scientific concepts. But should Americans who embrace creationism and intelligent design be able to include that in science class in their schools? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Abortion is a fact of American life and probably most Americans want at least some abortion to be legal and a matter of choice. But should Americans who believe abortion to be murder of a human life be allowed that point of view with impunity? Should either side have power to force the other to accept a particular side?

Probably most Americans would not get their nose out of joint if Megyn Kelly had suggested Donald Trump was driven by an overdose of testosterone and male arrogance. But a lot of people are apoplectic over Donald Trump referring to Megyn Kelly as 'hormonal' et al. If we truly believe in equality of the sexes, can we believe women are too fragile to be subject to implied misogyny while men are immune to sexist references?

I hope you see where I am going with this.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any USMB member or any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

2. For purposes of this discussion only, if there is any question or dispute re definitions used, the OP will define the word or term.

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

The poll is set up so members can change their answers if they change their mind.

Some people mistake tolerance for ignorance.

Last week, I had a guy drive out Gate 2, on day shift at about 4:00 pm.... at my job site. MOST BOTTLES, aluminum cans, soft drink containers, two liters of cola, bottles of water, liquid of any sorts ARE NOT allowed inside the complex, for the simple reason......they create an explosion hazard. An explosion could create fatalities, a mass casuality incident, cause severe burns and permanent damage and scarring......not to mention put hundreds of people out of a job.....and cause many months, or years even to rebuild ; IF THE decision to rebuild was made.

I went into "Military Mode" ( I am prior service - security experience ). The individual was a new contractor whom just had the safety orientation, and he drives out the gate with a two liter of "Mountain Dew" in the front drivers seat......like it was intentional to "get my goat".

Yes, I understand that some people see me as the overly nice guy, naive and whom is great with a stethoscope ( we all all EMS - Fire - HAZ MAT - Rescue - Security guys ) and whom has most liklely went through covert psychological assessments than any other person. I believe that I was watched when I first started my job, AND MY Personality was compared to my pictures in my residence that someone secretly snooped in while I was not at home, but point being.....THAT DOES NOT GIVE SOMEONE THE authority to be asinine and mistake me for stupid, nor to "try my patience" and play psychological game with me.



Well, not so much as "get my goat" , as it was obvious to me he was blatantly and with intention to make me get up in ire......so I did. I went into full "Military Mode."

Even after me and many of my colleagues previously having filed many written and computer incident reports with our supervisors and Department Manager.... of individuals bringing unauthorized containers into "The Plant", contractors are still allowed to bring unauthorized, and potentially lethal causing containers into the complex, without reprimand or punishment.....when the previous policy when I started was that they were not allowed back on Plant Site. Unauthorized containers could potentially cause a vapor.....or hot metal explosion ( google China Aluminum explosion...or hot metal explosion to understand. In China a whole factory was decimated ).

If I go into "Military Mode", I am not with restraint. If I am yelled and screamed at and I defend myself.....I am considered without restraint......a "Type A" person if you will. If someone plays stupid, plays word game with me and I yell back.....I am without restraint. If someone is intentionally being stupid or ignorant......playing dumb - or intentionally violating safety rules ( some rules can prove to be damaging or fatal to my coworkers and people I am charged with protecting ) ....and I go into "Military Mode"...I am considered without restraint...and sometimes formally, or informally retaliated against.

Some people intentionally "try my patience". I let them know that to do so....is simply a mistake. Other than a few people, about three in number...those whom got into a verbal confrontation with me lost, and never "tried" me again.


What would any other reasonable person, Security Officer, Law Enforcement Officer, Prior Service Military......do in my position and under the same circumstances? But yet, I am "led to believe"; or sometimes I am told, that I am the bad guy, and previously in some instances....even my supervisors and management failed to stand behind me as well as some of my decisions.
People previously, some of them, should have been told to leave, or escorted out of the complex.....SIMPLE as that. But we do not have that authority and people are allowed to violate and/or break severe safety policy and rules......some continuously break the rules and policy ; without reprimand...or punishment. Previously they were escorted out of the plant, and we did not have to pay the rest of their contract ( monies ) due to a safety violation. Now........they can do as they wish with no fear of punishment or reprimand, or worry of financial loss.

Especially the repetitive offenders that like to bring in, sneak in pop and soda cans. They should be told to leave.....never to return.

Shadow 355

Of course 'official rules' are somewhat different than presumed cultural rules that those who presume to enforce them can pick and choose who will be punished and who will get a pass. For instance Kelly Osborne on "The View" this past week was complaining about Trump's commitment to securing the border and dealing with illegals and said something to the effect: "If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump? Kelly gets pretty much a pass from the PC police though because 1) she was attacking a controversial un-PC person and 2) of course she, a PC crowd darling, didn't mean it like it came out. Had somebody famous who isn't a PC crowd darling said something like that, however, there would be huge shouts of indignant demands for that person's head to roll.

(And that doesn't even account for the real truth that Donald has not called for kicking Latinos out of the country, but rather has suggested that we kick out those who are here illegally.)

So if you are not entirely politically correct when you deal with disagreeable people on the job, well you are not a person of interest to the MSM or PC police. If you were, you might have to measure your words more carefully or deal with the organized angry mobs descending upon you demanding you be fired, etc. etc. etc.

The Sons of Liberty often attacked loyal colonists for speech they found offensive. They later demanded loyalty oaths and confiscated property and guns of those who refused. So what the OP views as enforcement of politically correct views and speech is as American as as it gets.

On what grounds, what foundation does the OP rest her case? On what authority?

 

[BULLDOG]

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

 

[Foxfyre]

The key to the defense of discrimination is getting the rest of us to actually believe that wedding vendors are "participants" in the wedding. This is the slender reed upon which those who want to discriminate hang their entire argument, and it's ridiculous.

If this was truly the case, we must then believe that wedding vendors are the same as invited guests or members of the wedding party itself. Along with the services normally provided, is each wedding vendor expected to dance at the reception? Be served a meal there? Bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper, or deposit an envelope of cash in a bridal purse?

This is true. Some want to split hairs and separate 'activity' from 'event'. And many if not most arguing in opposition to my argument have changed what I have argued into something easier for them to attack.

But the fact is, if you are required to go to a particular venue, provide a special product for it, provide a service for it, you are participating and/or contributing to the activity or event. Nobody should be forced to do that against their will for any reason other than essential contractual services such as would be required of police officers or firefighters, etc. Nobody's rights are being violated if I allow others their gay wedding in peace but choose not to attend it. Nobody's rights are being violated if I choose not to participate in it with special products or services either. My rights are not violated if the gay couple chooses to snub me and order their cake elsewhere.

I am arguing that everybody be allowed to be who and what they are and live their lives and conduct their businesses as they choose in peace short of violating anybody else's right. And I have no right whatsoever to demand that anybody, even a baker or florist or photographer or caterer or wedding singer, participate in my wedding if they choose not to do so.

I think it was Dante who posed a situation. You are a pizza delivery person who has been contracted to bring four pepperoni pizzas to a dormitory. you arrive, pizzas in hand and smell the acrid odor of marijuana smoke. Are you "participating" in the party, or is it just your responsibility to deliver the pies and leave?

And does every wedding vendor morally vet their clients? There may be an adulterer getting married, but as it is a heterosexual wedding, should that vendor refuse services? What about a ceremony for two people who inadequately honor their parents? Or a wedding of a mafia princess whose father kills people? Or a wedding on a Sunday afternoon? Isn't that failing to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

These are all sins specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality, however, is not mentioned there.

It does not matter what the reason is that a person chooses not to participate in an event or activity. If a business owner chose to leave the customer's premises before completing the delivery (and getting paid) in order to not be at the scene of an illegal activity, that should be his prerogative. Nobody has an unalienable right to have pizza delivered. If the pizzaria doesn't make good on the order, the customer either doesn't pay or is entitled to a refund.

Let's focus on the principle. Should others be given power to demand that we attend and/or provide special products and/or participate in their event or activity regardless of their personal opinions about that event or activity? It does not matter what the activity is.

How are my rights violated if you choose not to enter the premises of my event or otherwise choose not to be a participant in it? You haven't interfered with the activity or the event. You just choose not to be party to it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

One more time, what the existing law is or how the courts are set up or how the legal system works is NOT a basis for argument in this thread. We are arguing a principle, not the law. Please do not derail the thread from the focus of the thread topic.

 

[BULLDOG]

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

One more time, what the existing law is or how the courts are set up or how the legal system works is NOT a basis for argument in this thread. We are arguing a principle, not the law. Please do not derail the thread from the focus of the thread topic.

Since many are obviously having a hard time staying on the subject you would like to discuss, why don't you just say what the point you are wanting to make is. You have stated many times that you don't think people have a right to respond to language they feel is offensive. Other than your personal feelings, you have given no reason to agree with you. Put it out there plainly. What is your point and why.