Quote:uhhhhhhh.
There are already classes that it's a crime to discriminate against. Some of those discrimination was touted as religious beliefs.
I meant to say that he hung out with the sinners but made a typo. When I correct it, I mistakenly changed the meaning altogether.
As for the second comment, I understand that discrimination in some aspects is illegal. Marijuana is illegal too, but I'd guess that you're for that, huh?
I feel that, should I start my own business, I have ever right not to serve people I don't want to serve... for whatever reason I want to use.
This debate can not be won or lost on the morality or lack of in the issue. It has to be won or lost on the legislative ability to outlaw a choice of association. Either we have a society where the choice to freely associate is permitted or we do not. That is the debate, any other issue is a distraction.
Quote:I meant to say that he hung out with the sinners but made a typo. When I correct it, I mistakenly changed the meaning altogether.
As for the second comment, I understand that discrimination in some aspects is illegal. Marijuana is illegal too, but I'd guess that you're for that, huh?
I feel that, should I start my own business, I have ever right not to serve people I don't want to serve... for whatever reason I want to use.
They are not the same thing. Thinking some should or should not be legal from a recreational perspective isn't the same as saying you should be allowed to deny service to gays, or women or blacks or anything.
I don't think their is any place in a society for morals like that. Just my oppinion.
Quote:This debate can not be won or lost on the morality or lack of in the issue. It has to be won or lost on the legislative ability to outlaw a choice of association. Either we have a society where the choice to freely associate is permitted or we do not. That is the debate, any other issue is a distraction.
And nobody is arguing that. LGBT want to not be discriminated against and the right wants to discriminate base on hate. It's literally as simple as that. I am sure you realize that.
Could you imagine if black owners wanted to stop serving whites based on "deep beliefs"? But see they are over hating on blacks overtly and have moved on to the LGBT community because that's still legal.
Quote:They are not the same thing. Thinking some should or should not be legal from a recreational perspective isn't the same as saying you should be allowed to deny service to gays, or women or blacks or anything.
I don't think their is any place in a society for morals like that. Just my oppinion.
But that requires creating a society where someone is dictating morales and I thought we agreed you can't legislate morality.
Quote:But that requires creating a society where someone is dictating morales and I thought we agreed you can't legislate morality.
But you already are legislating morals. Purely having freedom of religion is legislating morals. Abolishing slavery?
Quote:And nobody is arguing that. LGBT want to not be discriminated against and the right wants to discriminate base on hate. It's literally as simple as that. I am sure you realize that.
Could you imagine if black owners wanted to stop serving whites based on "deep beliefs"? But see they are over hating on blacks overtly and have moved on to the LGBT community because that's still legal.
Everyone is arguing that they're just missing the real issue. Yes I can imagine a business not wanting to serve a race for whatever reason it's the same issue either we have free association or we don't.
I'm not speaking for anyone but myself but as far as I'm concerned all discrimination laws are a violation of free association. It's all the same argument just to different levels.
Quote:But you already are legislating morals. Purely having freedom of religion is legislating morals. Abolishing slavery?
Slavery is a violation of personal rights which are natural rights. That's not legislating morality that's government protecting life and property two of its legitimate functions. As for religious freedom that's another distraction, religion has no real role in the debate. It's a matter of free association or forced participation.
Quote:Slavery is a violation of personal rights which are natural rights. That's not legislating morality that's government protecting life and property two of its legitimate functions. As for religious freedom that's another distraction, religion has no real role in the debate. It's a matter of free association or forced participation.
It's "deeply held religious beliefs" Same as with hobby lobby and to say it's not is disingenuous, IMO
Quote:Everyone is arguing that they're just missing the real issue. Yes I can imagine a business not wanting to serve a race for whatever reason it's the same issue either we have free association or we don't.
I'm not speaking for anyone but myself but as far as I'm concerned all discrimination laws are a violation of free association. It's all the same argument just to different levels.
That's not a society the likes of which we were founded on should strive for. It's a backwards society that we have moved on from and will not be going back to.
Quote:I understand it's a "conviction" just as much as the rest of the "convictions" have been. Long forgotten (and explained away) once they finally evolve with the rest of society in accepting people for people and not for being inferior or evil.
The concept of sin, though integral to this discussion, is really not appropriate under the rules. Participation, especially forced participation, is the height of tyranny.
Quote:It's "deeply held religious beliefs" Same as with hobby lobby and to say it's not is disingenuous, IMO
It might be the justification used by some parties but it's not the issue. The issue is still the same are people free to associate with whom they chose or do we accept forced participation.
Quote:That's not a society the likes of which we were founded on should strive for. It's a backwards society that we have moved on from and will not be going back to.
Segregation was only possible because free people accepted government had the authority to dictate whom people will associate with. Government dictating association isn't progressing society it's shifting power of association from the individual to the collective, that's never ended well for anyone.
Quote: If a gay couple came into a bakery that I owned and asked for a cake, I'd do it. I'd go the extra mile.
As a Christian I would also make the cake. I want people to see Christ in me, not a bigoted hater.
Quote:Yes that was part of it. So was religion. If you don't know that, go google it.
Oh... so it's not only wrong if it's because you think you are better than them but NOT if it's a "core belief"? It wasn't a "core belief" that white were better than blacks? Or is discrimination OK only if you claim it's religiously motivated?
I see the perspective just fine. It's a "core belief" so they chose to discriminate against people. They could chose to be tolerant and accepting. The left's perspective is no discrimination against people.
You missed the point entirely. Your original claim was based on past arguments. My point is that the majority of the population has moved on from that perspective and the discussion has evolved.
You claim that the left's perspective is no discrimination against people, so let me ask you this:
Is it okay for a privately owned Muslim bakery to deny catering a gay wedding when the Koran states to kill all homosexuals?
Is it okay for a privately owned Jewish bakery to deny catering a Aryan Nation event considering the atrocities of Nazi Germany?
Is it okay for a privately owned Black American bakery to deny catering a KKK event?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, I ask why is okay to force a privately owned Christian bakery to host a gay wedding?
I am arguing for the rule of law and not the emotion of the day. As the left has been so gallantly pointing out for years, "you cannot legislate morality". So I ask, why is it permissible in one case and not the other.
Quote:Government dictating association isn't progressing society it's shifting power of association from the individual to the collective, that's never ended well for anyone.
You mean we're not Borg?!
Quote:The concept of sin, though integral to this discussion, is really not appropriate under the rules. Participation, especially forced participation, is the height of tyranny.
As opposed to oppression?
Quote:You missed the point entirely. Your original claim was based on past arguments. My point is that the majority of the population has moved on from that perspective and the discussion has evolved.
You claim that the left's perspective is no discrimination against people, so let me ask you this:
Is it okay for a privately owned Muslim bakery to deny catering a gay wedding when the Koran states to kill all homosexuals?
Is it okay for a privately owned Jewish bakery to deny catering a Aryan Nation event considering the atrocities of Nazi Germany?
Is it okay for a privately owned Black American bakery to deny catering a KKK event?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, I ask why is okay to force a privately owned Christian bakery to host a gay wedding?
I am arguing for the rule of law and not the emotion of the day. As the left has been so gallantly pointing out for years, "you cannot legislate morality". So I ask, why is it permissible in one case and not the other.
No its not OK. It is OK to deny hate speech or images on the requested items however. Just because this issue is made loud by a certain groups version of hate doesn't mean it a persecution of them. Service that would otherwise be given to some groups should not be denied to others. I'm pretty sure the KKK was (maybe still is) extremely religiously motivated for their hateful actions.
In addition. Yes you are right the conversation has evolved. From hate of some groups to others. Its still hate regardless of whether you back it by religion or not. Hate is hate IMO
Quote:Segregation was only possible because free people accepted government had the authority to dictate whom people will associate with. Government dictating association isn't progressing society it's shifting power of association from the individual to the collective, that's never ended well for anyone.
You lost me on this one. I get you current kick to back and never back off of is association but let's not for a second try to pretend the government was the only reason slavery existed. It mostly existed because of capitalism and the desire to make the most money possible at the expense who cares else. That's the definition of your unregulated free market at work.