This Should Make The Marxists Happy...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Does that imply that sufficient "mental anguish" was caused that needed monetary compensation?

Apparently, the judge believed so. And since a New York judge is far more qualified to interpret New York state law than I am, I will defer to that decision.

[seer]

I'm neither a socialist nor a liberal, and I support the fine levied by the State of New York. Had this been an interracial couple which was being denied service rather than a homosexual one, there would be overwhelming support for the fine from all sides. Yet, the exact same law which protects the interracial couple is the one which protected the homosexual couple, in this case.

Actually no, I don't agree that they should be force by law to serve an interracial couple either. Or anyone they choose not to. No man should be force, under threat of law, to serve another man.

This isn't a matter of Marxists attempting to force new rules down the throats of good people. This is about enforcing laws which have already been in existence for quite some time.

It doesn't matter how long unjust laws are on the books, they are still unjust.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Actually no, I don't agree that they should be force by law to serve an interracial couple either. Or anyone they choose not to.

It doesn't matter how long unjust laws are on the books, they are still unjust.

Cool. Then I suggest that you write to your Congressmen and other elected legislators and ask that they repeal the Civil Rights Act and all similar laws. Until they do, it is illegal for businesses to discriminate against customers in protected classes.

[Paprika]

Apparently, the judge believed so. And since a New York judge is far more qualified to interpret New York state law than I am, I will defer to that decision.

So your "support" for the compensation is merely a deference to the judgment made. Thanks for making that clear.

[Leonhard]

He didn't. It is the mindset - using government power and law to force all the citizens to conform to a particular worldview. With the increasing loss of freedom.

That's not nescessarily a bad idea. The government should not for instance recognise things that are wrong, such as vaccines not being efficient, and I fully support legislature that would fine parents for refusing to vaccinate their children, unless the parents could document publically recognised religious beliefs for not vaccinating them.

Even religious freedom I don't agree entirely with as its the root of the secular governments we now have, and is ultimately the cause of what you're seeing here.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So your "support" for the compensation is merely a deference to the judgment made. Thanks for making that clear.

Yep. Seer made the unsubstantiated implication that those who supported the State's decision to find the Giffords must be Marxists, socialists, or liberals. I was simply pointing out that I am none of the three, and yet I still support the State's decision.

[seer]

Yep. Seer made the unsubstantiated implication that those who supported the State's decision to find the Giffords must be Marxists, socialists, or liberals. I was simply pointing out that I am none of the three, and yet I still support the State's decision.

Well Boxing, I have been known to use hyperbole to get attention - have you noticed? And of course you are a liberal - I don't think I have ever seen you taking the politically conservative side of an argument.

[Paprika]

Yep. Seer made the unsubstantiated implication that those who supported the State's decision to find the Giffords must be Marxists, socialists, or liberals. I was simply pointing out that I am none of the three, and yet I still support the State's decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong: your support of the decision is only to the extent that you believe the law, whatever it is, should be upheld, and not because you think the law is right or just?

[seer]

That's not nescessarily a bad idea. The government should not for instance recognise things that are wrong, such as vaccines not being efficient, and I fully support legislature that would fine parents for refusing to vaccinate their children, unless the parents could document publically recognised religious beliefs for not vaccinating them.

Apples and oranges Leonhard. Not vaccinating could literally lead to widespread disease and death. Forcing a Christian couple to use their farm for a gay wedding - no harm, zero harm.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

And of course you are a liberal - I don't think I have ever seen you taking the politically conservative side of an argument.

That's because we haven't really discussed many matters of politics. I'll freely admit that my position on the civil rights of homosexuals is not generally considered to be politically conservative, but that's only one particular issue. You'd likely be surprised to see just how much you and I actually agree on many political matters.

Correct me if I'm wrong: your support of the decision is only to the extent that you believe the law, whatever it is, should be upheld, and not because you think the law is right or just?

I have no problem whatsoever with Seer's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. My contention is with the framing of cases like that of the Giffords as if they represent some new plot by Marxists and liberals to overthrow the status quo. There's a fairly large difference between arguing that it is unjust for the government to prevent discrimination based on protected classes, and the assertion that such protections are the machinations of liberal anti-Christian socialists.

[Leonhard]

Apples and oranges Leonhard. Not vaccinating could literally lead to widespread disease and death. Forcing a Christian couple to use their farm for a gay wedding - no harm, zero harm.

You made the claim that government authority was evil in general, and I disagree with that. I support big governments, though they wouldn't have the form of current governments and they'd be entirely based in Catholicism and its teachings about subsidiarity.

[seer]

You'd likely be surprised to see just how much you and I actually agree on many political matters.

Really? Like abortion, taxes, affirmative action, Gay marriage?

[Paprika]

I have no problem whatsoever with Seer's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. My contention is with the framing of cases like that of the Giffords as if they represent some new plot by Marxists and liberals to overthrow the status quo. There's a fairly large difference between arguing that it is unjust for the government to prevent discrimination based on protected classes, and the assertion that such protections are the machinations of liberal anti-Christian socialists.

I understand the intention of your post. That said, it would be appreciated if you could answer my question.

[Leonhard]

Really? Like abortion, taxes, affirmative action, Gay marriage?

Don't you think its off-topic to talk about whether or not Boxing_Pythagoras is a liberal?

He probably considers himself fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[seer]

You made the claim that government authority was evil in general, and I disagree with that. I support big governments, though they wouldn't have the form of current governments and they'd be entirely based in Catholicism and its teachings about subsidiarity.

Well in practice "big governments" are generally inefficient, ham-fisted, and and far too controlling.