Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Asher's Bakery Case Update
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWe get it, you are against person freedom and have no problem using the Government to make us all conform to leftist ideology.
Originally posted by seer View PostNonsense Carrikature, businesses had the very freedoms I speak of for most of our history, until recently, and we did not have anarchy.
That's not even close to what I said.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postor of whom they disapprove. And, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they are not. No one can discriminate based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou missed it again, Tassy. It's not that they "don't like the people".I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostCheck the bolding, CP.
Check the bolding, C.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostIt's not a meaningful distinction, especially in these sorts of cases.
But clearly "disapprove of" is referring to actions...
you bolded only part of the statement, which, in its entirety was....
"The issue is whether service providers are entitled to discriminate against those they do not like or of whom they disapprove."
Digging back several posts, the discussion was about the refusal of the baker to provide a cake for a homosexual wedding, which is why they asked who it was for. If they were ordering a cake for gramma, that would probably not have been a problem. The answer, however, was...
"And when they said it was them, I said, 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages,'"
She (is it even a she anymore?) seemed not to have a problem with the PEOPLE that were asking for the cake, but for the purpose.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostIt's not a meaningful distinction, especially in these sorts of cases.
But clearly "disapprove of" is referring to actions...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostI'll ask you the same thing I asked Carrik (you people never actually answer this question because you are disingenuous to the core and know you are arguing in bad faith): So you have no problem with religious requirements for starting a business? You know, since you aren't forced to start one.Yes, they are entitled to discriminate, because anti-discrimination is in many cases (like this one) forced labour as well as a breach of other actual constitutional rights. There is no right to be liked or socialized with in any way. If there was liberals would be the first to be thrown in prison for all their anti-white, anti-male, anti-femininity, anti-heterosexual bigotry.Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostIn the old days it was mandatory to discriminate against blacks. Segregation wasn't optional even if a business didn't want to segregate. Then the hilariously misnamed civil rights act came along and made forced labour mandatory. The laws on both extremes were unconstitutional (among other things).
There has never been a time where the obvious middle ground was the general practice.Last edited by Tassman; 10-30-2016, 12:06 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostAre you really unaware of how often believers claim that atheists are actually theists who want to rebel against the God they actually believe in? I've lost count of the people who have claimed I'm not really an atheist.
IOW - then surely you should realise how wrong - and potentially dangerous - what you advocated is....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThe comparison doesn't work. Atheism has a single qualifier: theistic disbelief. We're not the ones fragmenting over who is following the proper creed or playing the right music (or not) in service....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostGareth Lee and his partner...how is this relevant?
The gay rights activist {Gareth Lee} had requested a cake depicting Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie below the motto 'Support Gay Marriage' for an event to mark International Day Against Homophobia....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostThese Christian bakers made at least one basic mistake:
They imagine that their religious beliefs are respectable and that their customers ought to show them respect because they are Christians.
He imagines his anti-Christian beliefs are respectable and that the other posters ought to show him respect because he's .... (haven't figured out that part yet)The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Do you have a problem with religious requirements for running a business given that fining someone for not following regulation does not constitute force?
is
They were the days of the Jim Crow laws, were they a good thing in your opinion? Perhaps there should be Jim Crow type type laws mandated against serving homosexuals. Wouldn't that be nice.
What's this "middle ground", of which you speak...the freedom of Evangelicals to discriminate against homosexuals."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostDo you have a problem with religious requirements for running a business given that fining someone for not following regulation does not constitute force?
This is false, the Civil Rights Act does not cover butt pirates. Or cross-dressing transvestites, dwarf or otherwise.
Jim Crow, like your own preferences, involved forced labour. The only difference between you and Bull Connor as far as this matter is concerned is the year in which you were born.
The freedom of everybody to refuse work for whatever reason, as ensrhined in the 13th amendment.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 05:12 PM
|
3 responses
37 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 05:26 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:07 PM
|
17 responses
62 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:40 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:00 PM
|
6 responses
51 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, Yesterday, 10:21 AM
|
10 responses
86 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Today, 01:31 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
42 responses
167 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 12:38 AM
|
Comment