Originally posted by Meta Knight
View Post
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
Man sues because of religious discrimination when baker refuses to make anti-gay cake
Collapse
X
-
Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostThe "to anyone" part, because it isn't fair for someone to be allowed to refuse service to literally anyone. There has to be a good reason to refuse service to some individuals, and I wanted to know what he thinks are good reasons, unless you seriously mean to tell me that a doctor can refuse to treat a patient and thus possibly allow him to die because he was about to participate in a same-sex marriage soon and the doctor doesn't approve of same-sex marriages on the basis of his religion.
These days, social media will quickly take care of anybody who really is discriminating."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI think there can be legitimate justifications to refuse service. The store where I works has a regular customer from the store next door who apparently has been bragging about stealing from our store. We haven't caught her in the act (though we found evidence of stealing left in our restroom right after she used it) but if my manager wanted to outright refuse her I think he would be within his rights, even if he doesn't have anything concrete to go on.
These days, social media will quickly take care of anybody who really is discriminating.Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostYeah, this is a good example of what I meant by "good reasons to refuse service.""I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostThere has to be a good reason to refuse service to some individuals, and I wanted to know what he thinks are good reasons, unless you seriously mean to tell me that a doctor can refuse to treat a patient and thus possibly allow him to die because he was about to participate in a same-sex marriage soon and the doctor doesn't approve of same-sex marriages on the basis of his religion."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 square_peg View PostThe "to anyone" part, because it isn't fair
for someone to be allowed to refuse service to literally anyone. There has to be a good reason to refuse service to some individuals,
and I wanted to know what he thinks are good reasons, unless you seriously mean to tell me that a doctor can refuse to treat a patient and thus possibly allow him to die because he was about to participate in a same-sex marriage soon and the doctor doesn't approve of same-sex marriages on the basis of his religion.
Comment
-
Oh the horror!
A private Christian school in Tennessee has told a pair of prospective parents to look elsewhere — because they happen to be gay dads.
“I believe another education provider would be a better fit for your children. Therefore, we cannot grant admission to your children,” reads a letter from the school that was posted on Facebook Wednesday by Brian Copeland. Copeland and his husband Greg Bullard, a pastor, are the fathers of 3-year-old son who is readying to enter pre-K, as well as a daughter who is 8 months old. The letter he posted — which explains that “homosexuality” is a “lifestyle conduct which is in opposition to the mission” of the school — has been shared on Facebook more than 200 times, inciting many expressions of anger and sadness both there and on Twitter.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
I wonder how long it will be before a bartender or the bar itself is sued for discrimination? A person comes into a bar drunk, bartender refuses to serve him because he is obviously already over the limit. Gets sued because the person he refused to serve is homosexual, person of color...etc? You can say that the drunk part takes precedent, but there's no "proof" without a breathalyzer so it becomes his word against the other..."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostOvernight it occurred to me that one reason your distinction (about lack of message on the cake) falls flat is that the law, as currently written, doesn't make that distinction. I recall hearing about a t-shirt maker who was found guilty of breaking the law for refusing to make t-shirts with a pro-gay message.
Of course, this is merely a statutory argument. The ideological basis of the argument, that groups of people should not be discriminated against based on fundamental or inherent properties (e.g., race, religion, sex) is well established. It's only because a certain party in Congress is far behind the public opinion that sexual orientation is not a federally protected status.
Originally posted by Joel View PostThe right of freedom of association is actually equal protection. If it were upheld as it should be, then everyone would be equally protected in their right to enter or refrain from entering what mutually voluntary interactions they wish. An individual making or refusing to make an exchange is in no sense a violation of the equal protection of the law. It's just an individual exercising his freedom of choice, which everyone should have equally.
On the other hand anti-discrimination laws are a violation of equal protection. They limit sellers, for instance, while still leaving it legal for customers in general to discriminate against sellers (e.g. based on skin color).
If person A wants to make exchange X with person B, but person B doesn't want to make that exchange, then you have two options: you can consistently defend the equal protection of each person and their property, or you can make the law unequal by forcing B to make the exchange (i.e. threatening punishment if B refuses).
(There are multiple principles violated by such anti-discrimination laws. Another example is the freedom of thought.)"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Barring the government or medical services, anyone should have the right to discriminate anyone for any reason whatsoever. I should have the right to refuse service to racist bastards if I want to.
All anti-discrimination, hate crime and maybe even all libel and slander laws should be repealed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View PostBarring the government or medical services, anyone should have the right to discriminate anyone for any reason whatsoever. I should have the right to refuse service to racist bastards if I want to.
All anti-discrimination, hate crime and maybe even all libel and slander laws should be repealed."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
No Sam, we are only at odds with recent history, and no we certainly are not at odds with The Constitution. I would like to know which constitutional principle claims that any man has a right to my labor.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostThe "to anyone" part, because it isn't fair for someone to be allowed to refuse service to literally anyone.
There has to be a good reason to ....
To punish person A for doing something because of A's reason for doing it is an example of thought crime!
Originally posted by Sam View PostYou can hold this philosophy and continue to advocate it. You are, however, at clear odds with well-established history, constitutional law, and a good number of SCOTUS decisions. In other words, you can have your opinion all right but you can't very well claim constitutional authority in doing so.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostThis thread is a discussion regarding what the law ought to be. Obviously I disagree with the current state of the law. That existing laws violate freedom of association and equal protection, as I was explaining. They are bad laws. So I don't understand how your pointing out the existing state of the law is some kind of argument against what I'm saying. Or are you saying that SCOTUS has addressed the specific argument I made and refuted it? If that's the case you need to present that logical refutation here, and we can examine whether it is a sound counter-argument."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 08:45 AM
|
5 responses
50 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 01:19 PM
|
26 responses
206 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:06 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-03-2024, 12:23 PM
|
100 responses
430 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by alaskazimm
Yesterday, 10:09 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 11:46 AM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
05-04-2024, 06:52 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-03-2024, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
116 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-03-2024, 02:49 PM
|
Comment