If a gay couple went to a Muslim bakery, requested a same sex wedding cake and were denied would you still find it amusing?

 

Yes absolutely. 

---

Understandable, I get that I really do, but that doesn't change the basis of my statement that taxation does not equal sponsorship. Otherwise when we paid property tax you'd be saying we are all sponsored by the state for owning our own homes.

 

Just remember that the core of their thinking is that you have no real rights, you are owned by the state.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's a pretty big false equivalency lets stay reasonable here.

 

I'll expand on what I'm saying, Anchorman's argument was that a business exist to serve the public and therefor has to be required to serve all of the public equally.

That's reasonable if all business exist to serve the public, but that's not the purpose of business at all. For example there are business to business transactions that exclude the public all together. There are exclusive transactions that discriminate against all kinds of groups. There are gender based, social economically based, racially based, ethnically based business that cater to specific demographics every day.

 

For Anchorman's argument to be true, that business exist to serve the public, we would have to accept that public service is primary to profit in order to operate a business in our society. On the surface that sounds great, people before profit! But that's not the economic system we have where the exchange of goods is the only engine driving our economy. If the purpose of business is to be public service we need to discuss changing the entire landscape of our economy, that's a big subject.

 

The reality is business doesn't exist to serve anyone other then those they choose to make a profit from. It's why you have to pay for services, it's why business of all type put qualifiers on who they will serve and it's why this notion that discrimination can be outlawed is silly at the core.

What's silly is trying to defend discrimination as being intrinsic, and therefore acceptable, to capitalism.  

---

You don't care about people's religious convictions. You only care about YOUR religious convictions, and people who have the exact same convictions as you. 

 

This is not true at all. I don't care if gay marriage is legal or not. I don't care if other ministers choose to perform gay weddings. I'm one of the largest proponents of personal freedom on this board. I simply don't want to be forced by the state or the mob to participate against my convictions.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Just remember that the core of their thinking is that you have no real rights, you are owned by the state.

 

I don't think that's all of their thinking, or that they are all aware of that. I'm trying to illustrate it to make that clear.

 

What's silly is trying to defend discrimination as being intrinsic, and therefore acceptable, to capitalism.  

 

I'm not defending it, I'm explaining why it exist and always will exist unless we impose an economic system free of individual choice and association.

---

This is not true at all. I don't care if gay marriage is legal or not. I don't care if other ministers choose to perform gay weddings. I'm one of the largest proponents of personal freedom on this board. I simply don't want to be forced by the state or the mob to participate against my convictions.

Is the mob the majority of Americans or the minority? Or is just the people who won't tolerate discrimination? 

---

I don't think that's all of their thinking, or that they are all aware of that. I'm trying to illustrate it to make that clear.

 

 

I'm not defending it, I'm explaining why it exist and always will exist unless we impose an economic system free of individual choice and association.

Or you could just make discrimination illegal in business. It already is for select groups. How is this such a bad concept to implement?

---

Just remember that the core of their thinking is that you have no real rights, you are owned by the state.

Yes of course equal rights and calling for an end to discrimination is being owned by the state. 

---

Yes of course equal rights and calling for an end to discrimination is being owned by the state. 

 

When I don't have the right to say no then yes, I am owned by the state.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Or you could just make discrimination illegal in business. It already is for select groups. How is this such a bad concept to implement?

 

The concept isn't the problem, its the compromise in free association that is the problem. I don't care what the category is, people shouldn't be discriminated against, however to make that the same as outlawing all discrimination you have to revoke the rights of others to freely associate with whom they choose.

 

Sacrificing one set of rights for another is the exact type of compromises that lead to no one having any rights left to sacrifice.

 

To look at it from another aspect, where is the moral justification in using the force of government to force one individual to interact with another. I'll go back to is it justifiable to force a Black business owner to serve a member of the Klan?  The category shouldn't change the legal standing of an issue.

---

The concept isn't the problem, its the compromise in free association that is the problem. I don't care what the category is, people shouldn't be discriminated against, however to make that the same as outlawing all discrimination you have to revoke the rights of others to freely associate with whom they choose.

 

Sacrificing one set of rights for another is the exact type of compromises that lead to no one having any rights left to sacrifice.

 

To look at it from another aspect, where is the moral justification in using the force of government to force one individual to interact with another. I'll go back to is it justifiable to force a Black business owner to serve a member of the Klan?  The category shouldn't change the legal standing of an issue.

You are making the choice to operate a business open to the public. You are than choosing to discriminate people. I do not think  that has any place in society. It breeds hate and ignorance and should not be allowed. The problem is not what YOU are proposing as the issue with it. It's other wants to be able to legally do it. It's based on hate and I am sure you see that. It's no different than other forms of hate that have been outlawed. 

---

When I don't have the right to say no then yes, I am owned by the state.

No, you are not and it's quite hyperbolic to say so. 

---

This is not true at all. I don't care if gay marriage is legal or not. I don't care if other ministers choose to perform gay weddings. I'm one of the largest proponents of personal freedom on this board. I simply don't want to be forced by the state or the mob to participate against my convictions.

How does selling something to a gay person make you "participate against [your] convictions?"


Where does it say in the bible 'thou shalt not sell cake to gay folks' exactly?


It's not like the state is forcing you to have butt sex with your customers.

---

If you're a State employee, then you shouldn't descriminate on any condition.

 

If you're a private employee, I believe you should be free to do so at your own expense. 

 

Having said that, if I was that baker, I would have sold them that cake. Jesus hung out with the sinners. I may not agree with it, but I'm going to do my best to be a good example. Their lifestyle doesn't offend me. I don't, however, believe that people that believe otherwise should be forced into submission. The idea that intolerance should be legally oppressed is a bit narrow-minded. It looks good on paper, but who sets the guidelines? Where is the limit? What happens when reasonableness now is not reasonableness later?

---

Here's a tip. You don't want to sell a pizza to certain sect of our society, don't sell pizza.


You don't like that, you can get out.


Move to Iran. It's that simple.


America is the land of the free (to buy cake from any business with a state-sponsored license to sell cake) and if you got a problem with that you can get out.

 

Out of all the legitimate reasons to justify your argument, that last statement is not one. State-sponsored? Negative. As Eric mentioned, that is only a tax that you pay before doing business. Besides, how is that any different than saying a tax return is "state-sponsored" because you paid too much? Paying the government isn't a condition for free speech.

 

 

How does selling something to a gay person make you "participate against [your] convictions?"


Where does it say in the bible 'thou shalt not sell cake to gay folks' exactly?


It's not like the state is forcing you to have butt sex with your customers.

 

Like I said earlier, I don't agree with what they did, but it doesn't have to say it if that is how they interpreted it. 

---

If you're a State employee, then you shouldn't descriminate on any condition.

 

If you're a private employee, I believe you should be free to do so at your own expense. 

 

Having said that, if I was that baker, I would have sold them that cake. Jesus didn't hang out with the sinners. I may not agree with it, but I'm going to do my best to be a good example. Their lifestyle doesn't offend me. I don't, however, believe that people that believe otherwise should be forced into submission. The idea that intolerance should be legally oppressed is a bit narrow-minded. It looks good on paper, but who sets the guidelines? Where is the limit? What happens when reasonableness now is not reasonableness later?

uhhhhhhh. 

 

There are already classes that it's a crime to discriminate against. Some of those discrimination was touted as religious beliefs. 

---

That was the exact same argument was made in regards to racism and sexism. The exact same one. They lost those arguments and have now moved on to other forms of discrimination all while claiming religious persecution. If you are one of those people and use religious convictions as an excuse to discriminate than yes, you will be. Stop hating people so much.  

 

You are wrong!  In the past, the discrimination's that you pointed out were based on the concept that one segment of society was better than the other.  IE. Aryan  better than Jew, white better than black, hetero better than homo. ect, ect..  The discussion of today is (as I perceive it) that if it goes against a person's core values and beliefs, why is it that that person forced to participate.  For the most part with a few exceptions, I have not heard nor seen people of faith trying to deny (key point here, I am talking about the common man and not the national media hysteria of focusing an all out bigot) that all people are equal.  The 2 issues that I see those of Christian faith arguing are:

 

  1.  Why are we granting special privileges to certain groups that are already covered in our basic rights in the tenants of government?

  2.  Why is it permissible to denounce a Christian's core values and beliefs all the while as you prop up another set of core values and beliefs?

 

If you refuse to see the perspective from the media labeled Christian Right, then I have to ask, is your mind any more open than those you chose to chastise for having a closed mind?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

How does selling something to a gay person make you "participate against [your] convictions?"

Where does it say in the bible 'thou shalt not sell cake to gay folks' exactly?

It's not like the state is forcing you to have butt sex with your customers.

Participation in a gay wedding for those who believe that gay marriage is a sin is a violation of their convictions. You really do understand this, you just want to avoid the fact that it's a serious problem because you don't share the conviction. But someday they'll gore your ox and I'll be there defending your rights too.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You are wrong!  In the past, the discrimination's that you pointed out were based on the concept that one segment of society was better than the other.  IE. Aryan  better than Jew, white better than black, hetero better than homo. ect, ect..  The discussion of today is (as I perceive it) that if it goes against a person's core values and beliefs, why is it that that person forced to participate.  For the most part with a few exceptions, I have not heard nor seen people of faith trying to deny (key point here, I am talking about the common man and not the national media hysteria of focusing an all out bigot) that all people are equal.  The 2 issues that I see those of Christian faith arguing are:

 

  1.  Why are we granting special privileges to certain groups that are already covered in our basic rights in the tenants of government?

  2.  Why is it permissible to denounce a Christian's core values and beliefs all the while as you prop up another set of core values and beliefs?

 

If you refuse to see the perspective from the media labeled Christian Right, then I have to ask, is your mind any more open than those you chose to chastise for having a closed mind?

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. 

---

Participation in a gay wedding for those who believe that gay marriage is a sin is a violation of their convictions. You really do understand this, you just want to avoid the fact that it's a serious problem because you don't share the conviction. But someday they'll gore your ox and I'll be there defending your rights too.

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.

---