SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,380
|
Post by SK80 on Nov 15, 2019 4:17:49 GMT -8
It's not against the law to be a member of the KKK right? Black Panthers.., Black Lives Matter..? La Raza...? Antifa...?
I take a Libertarian view on much of this as well...., in a free society let people be free to think what they may, do as they do, as long as it does not go out and to harm to someone. We have become so sensitive and weak that anyones actions hurt my feelings.
So if Joe the racist down the street, or JoJo the racist or Juan the racist want to be so let them drown in their ignorance in the 21st century. As we meld further and further these fringe thinkers and actors will fade from relevance. If cake maker guy doesn't want to put something I WANT on a cake, simply move along to the next cake maker. Why are some, mainly the left, so intent on forcing people to live under certain guise? Right now the left politically and socially are FORCING free thinkers to no longer think for themselves whether high or wrong in their position, maybe a free thinking position you or an other will ever understand. So let it go, eat your cake someone where else.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,903
|
Post by Bick on Nov 15, 2019 7:16:58 GMT -8
Of course not. I don't think baking a cake or printing a t-shirt is an exercise in religion however. If you went to a Catholic baker and asked them to bake a cake with an anti-Catholic message on it I would say they'd be within their rights to refuse to bake such a cake. By anti-Catholic, do you mean something along the lines of "Catholicism is wrong", or would a message Catholics are strongly opposed to, like "pro choice" qualify? |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Nov 15, 2019 8:48:58 GMT -8
Since you seem to be all about religious freedom...how would you feel if a Muslim baker refused to bake a cake for Christians because his faith teaches that Christian marriage is a sin in the eyes of god? Man, that's an easy one. I couldn't be happier to take my business down the street to a Muslim or non-Muslim baker who would be happy to bake me a cake. The last thing I'd want to do is force the first guy to bake me one. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Nov 15, 2019 9:44:52 GMT -8
Since you seem to be all about religious freedom...how would you feel if a Muslim baker refused to bake a cake for Christians because his faith teaches that Christian marriage is a sin in the eyes of god? Man, that's an easy one. I couldn't be happier to take my business down the street to a Muslim or non-Muslim baker who would be happy to bake me a cake. The last thing I'd want to do is force the first guy to bake me one. I wonder why he wouldn’t expect that to be the case. he might believe everyone is as closed minded and puerile as he is? |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 15, 2019 9:46:44 GMT -8
And then what if that white baker made blacks sit in a designated area if they wanted to eat there? BTW, I agree the business owner would soon be out of business if he chose to do that, and was allowed to legally. I made the same argument you did along libertarian lines of very limited gov't involvement, but I got stuck when it came to this. It is his business, he gets to make the rules. If the white baker wanted to make black customers wear do-rags and sing hymns, again, his business, his rules. No one is forcing the discriminated against patrons to go there and it is completely reasonable to expect a majority of the other patrons to refuse to return as well if they see seating areas designated by color. Allow the (truthful) information to get out, something that is very easy with current technology and soon the only people who will be eating there will be those who agree with those views. If the viewpoint should not exist in society, that business will soon cease to exist. Part of that is a Libertarian viewpoint and the other is choosing to not go someplace that you aren't wanted. If I walk into the greatest Mexican restaurant in the world and an all brown crowd looks at me in disdain, why would I still want to eat their wonderful food? They don't want me there, who knows what will be added to my order, I will be uncomfortable, no one is happy. If I leave, go to "Gringo's Taco Palace" where I find out it is run by a guy I went to grade school with at St. Pius V in Buena Park, I get to have a great meal in a place that wants me there and get to reminisce with him about Zoila Martinez, a senorita who went into puberty much earlier than all the other girls. Many in the alphabet crowd dislike this view because they want their behavior and lifestyle to be condoned by the rest of the public. Meanwhile, they organize Gay & Lesbian bowling leagues (or other such activities or events), excluding those who don't have the same viewpoints as them. I support their choice to do so, but they need to let others do the same in order to be consistent. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Nov 15, 2019 9:54:49 GMT -8
And then what if that white baker made blacks sit in a designated area if they wanted to eat there? BTW, I agree the business owner would soon be out of business if he chose to do that, and was allowed to legally. I made the same argument you did along libertarian lines of very limited gov't involvement, but I got stuck when it came to this. It is his business, he gets to make the rules. If the white baker wanted to make black customers wear do-rags and sing hymns, again, his business, his rules. No one is forcing the discriminated against patrons to go there and it is completely reasonable to expect a majority of the other patrons to refuse to return as well if they see seating areas designated by color. Allow the (truthful) information to get out, something that is very easy with current technology and soon the only people who will be eating there will be those who agree with those views. If the viewpoint should not exist in society, that business will soon cease to exist. Part of that is a Libertarian viewpoint and the other is choosing to not go someplace that you aren't wanted. If I walk into the greatest Mexican restaurant in the world and an all brown crowd looks at me in disdain, why would I still want to eat their wonderful food? They don't want me there, who knows what will be added to my order, I will be uncomfortable, no one is happy. If I leave, go to "Gringo's Taco Palace" where I find out it is run by a guy I went to grade school with at St. Pius V in Buena Park, I get to have a great meal in a place that wants me there and get to reminisce with him about Zoila Martinez, a senorita who went into puberty much earlier than all the other girls. Many in the alphabet crowd dislike this view because they want their behavior and lifestyle to be condoned by the rest of the public. Meanwhile, they organize Gay & Lesbian bowling leagues (or other such activities or events), excluding those who don't have the same viewpoints as them. I support their choice to do so, but they need to let others do the same in order to be consistent. This is the most reasoned approach and echos my own beliefs very well. I do not care if some guy wants to hump another guy. It is nothing at all to me. But I draw the line at any group trying to force me to accept their practices. That is true whether they be Jehovahs Witnesses, homosexuals, socialists, anti-gun nuts, or Charismatic Baptists. ”you” want freedom to pursue your own preferences, then afford me that same freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 16, 2019 7:25:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 16, 2019 7:39:24 GMT -8
We used to live in this society...it wasn't very orderly.
You really should avoid speculating about what gay people think or what they "really" want...you're just not very good at it. This idea that gays are looking for approval from you or the rest of society is just wrong.
The reason they are called "gay and Lesbian" events is to let people know these are gay friendly events...rather sad that it's necessary but there you go...I think you'd find if you checked that most of these events would welcome people of any sexual preference...they aren't "exclusive" despite your claim. Every "gay" bar I've ever been in has been very open to anyone who wants to come in...with the exception of some lesbian bars...some of those places are strictly for the ladies, and they'll give you the stink eye when you walk in to let you know.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 17, 2019 12:37:36 GMT -8
The reason they are called "gay and Lesbian" events is to let people know these are gay friendly events...rather sad that it's necessary but there you go...I think you'd find if you checked that most of these events would welcome people of any sexual preference...they aren't "exclusive" despite your claim. Every "gay" bar I've ever been in has been very open to anyone who wants to come in...with the exception of some lesbian bars...some of those places are strictly for the ladies, and they'll give you the stink eye when you walk in to let you know. The problem with your claim is that it assumes every other event is not gay friendly. That is patently incorrect and brings into play the constant false victim claiming that the general public "doesn't like me because I'm gay". Staying with the bowling league example, there is no standard for the average bowling league that is unfriendly towards anyone's lifestyle. The average bowling league doesn't care if you are straight, gay, married, single, Mormon, Catholic, atheist, etc. it is not relevant and plays no part. Now if you act like an ass towards other people in the league, they will be unfriendly towards you. Not because one happens to like dick, but because they are a dick. In the Alphabet events, they are only friendly to you if you condone and support the alphabet folks. Those events are exclusive, there is no way anyone who doesn't believe what the organizers believe would be allowed to participate. Not unlike the infamous women's march a few years back where they would not allow well known pro-life women to participate in the march The difference isn't about one type of event being "gay friendly" and the other not, rather it is about the purpose of the event. The traditional bowling league is about bowling and socializing. The Gay & Lesbian bowling league is about talking how wonderful gay & lesbian people are and that anyone who doesn't support them is evil. The latter just uses the bowling league as a pretense for their agenda. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 17, 2019 12:39:58 GMT -8
...This idea that gays are looking for approval from you or the rest of society is just wrong. All of the gay pride parades in the world disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 17, 2019 13:19:49 GMT -8
On gay issues you are laughably ignorant. The fact that you spout nonsense about "the gay agenda" proves that.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 17, 2019 13:22:35 GMT -8
So Tell me...how they are going to gain your approval by participating in an event that you and many others disapprove of?
This is why your argument makes no sense whatever.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 17, 2019 14:59:37 GMT -8
So Tell me...how they are going to gain your approval by participating in an event that you and many others disapprove of? This is why your argument makes no sense whatever. Please show the evidence that I disapprove of gay pride parades. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 17, 2019 15:03:38 GMT -8
...you spout nonsense about "the gay agenda". I never wrote about "the gay agenda". That is a phrase you made up. The agenda I was talking about is one done by the organizers of the Gay & Lesbian bowling league, the one that discriminates against people who have different views than the organizers. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Nov 17, 2019 22:15:06 GMT -8
Vilepagan: It's also possible that my bias stems from the fact that this is a secular society, not a religious one.
You've stated this a few times, so what exactly do you mean by this? I say it's not either/or, as the 1st Amendment to the Constitution also seems to support:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Originally, this applied only to the Federal government, though the SCOTUS has since bound the states to the same principle. In any case, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. And the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the baker's free exercise of his religious principles by a 6-0 verdict.
|
|
