you no longer can hold your own values in America
you are no longer able to chose to exercise your values in America. You now run the risk of being forced to become a hypocrite by the government. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, this baker should not be forced to work for people he chooses not too.
The cost to society be DAMNED! If this man wants to refuse service to anyone for any reason it is his choice. He is willingly not accepting payment for his services and he should be able to willingly then refuse service. I would refuse to comply with these orders on the grounds that I am not a slave. I can feel the steam raising off my head over this one. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!
it is off the constitutional ranch
A private business is private property. If you do not like the attitude or ideas of the property owner, do not patronize the business. And if you wish, do what you can to make other customers aware of what they are subsidizing by their patronage. Let each look to his or her own conscience.
Ayn Rand wrote on this subject with regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (I believe the essay was entitled "Racism"). The Civil Rights Act was enacted in the belief that racial bigotry could be abolished by legislation. Looking back from 50 years' distance, wouldn't it have been far better to let those who wanted to run "whites only" restaurants, etc. do so, and let all who pass their places of business know what fools they are? I certainly would not patronize such a place--who would? It would be far better to be able to see who did, and know to avoid such people.
You can get the quality of the "base product" PLUS any "custom options" you care to add.
Works well in SO many other markets... (got an app for that?)
Hm?
You want to guarantee the perpetuation and survival of bigotry? Force people to associate with others when they don't wish to. Resentments will build.
And Ayn Rand's philosophy also said the only way to violate someone's rights was through physical force, which is simply untrue. That's the flaw.
I completely agree with you that race should not be a factor in associating with an individual but that's lots of negatives, maph.
Wasn't slavery outlawed already?
I believe they called that "Fascism"
Racism? Liberals are often the most racist.
Homophobic? Ever hear Alec Baldwin?
Anti-Poor? Whose economic policies keep people poor so they keep voting for you?
Fascist? Who's telling private people what they can and can't do with their lives or private property?
There's a book called "The Pink Triangle" you might want to read.
I can remember when it was a compliment to describe a person as a discriminating individual. If the market doesn't like the baker that won't sell gay wedding cakes, the market will put him out of business. Anti-discrimination and hate laws are no saner than blue laws. Both are utilizing force to impose someone else's idea of right/wrong on me. I'll take my ball and go home.
Who's John Galt?
Human rights should never be determined by the market, because the market very often is entirely capable of permitting discrimination.
I don't owe a pair of homosexuals a wedding cake.
Yes, the market is very often entirely capable of permitting discrimination; of course it is. That's why avocado appliances haven't been sold since the 1970s.
Human rights are not determined by the market.
The homosexuals in question do NOT have a right to have a bakery make a cake for them. Nobody has a *right* to the efforts or creation of other humans.
If they want a wedding cake, find a baker who will make one for them. Or make one themselves. Or have a relative make one. Or do without.
I have no sympathy for people intent upon perverting valuable cultural traditions out of a refusal to recognize their own illness.
And the judge should be jailed.
Ah, the truth comes out. And the religious base of it, and the hatred. You've outed yourself.
Sad.
I don't use a religious base for my stand that homosexuality is a mental/emotional illness. I have explained my position in other message threads.
Sexual attraction and romantic feelings exist for the function of perpetuating the species. Just as your stomach exists to digest food and provide nourishment, your genitalia exist to perpetuate the species.
If you are compelled to inhale hotdogs, and swallow carbon monoxide, there's something wrong with your mental/emotional processes. If you are sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex, to inanimate objects, to animals, to children, there's something wrong with your mental/emotional processes. This, in and of itself, doesn't mean you're a bad person. What makes you a bad person is attempting to force others to ignore your illness and pretend it's normal and healthy.
I have no hatred for anyone suffering from homosexuality. I have hatred for anyone, homosexuals, feminists, communists, Westboro Baptists, politicians, Hollywood performers, and many others, who attempt to force me to accept their changes to a society that was once quite successful and becomes less successful in direct proportion to the success of their attempts to warp the nation to match their delusions.
You want to play hide the banana with some other guy's rectal orifice, go for it, so long as I don't have to be in any way involved. But, don't expect me to believe a tail is a leg. Worse, don't try forcing me to accept tails as legs.
But I call bullshit on your claim of mental/emotional illness.
One of the major bullshit points is your claim that romantic feelings exist for the function of perpetuating the species.
Oh, wait... romantic FEELINGS (including attraction and sexual arousal DO SUPPORT the FUNCTION of perpetuating the species... true!
But the concept that those things are the REASON for arousal or attraction is bullshit! The arousal and attraction and all that crap are driving forces that lead (virtually) all species to MATE because the MATING produces PLEASURE.
You could just as easily conclude that sex feels good IN ORDER TO perpetuate (the) species, but that is really a disconnected leap.
When you were a teenager hot for some member of (obviously) the opposite sex, were you thinking, "well, that's a hot number and they turn me on so that we can make babies to perpetuate the species"????
Get real. It was for pure animal pleasure.
It's only after humans reach some level of maturity and socialization that they desire to HAVE CHILDREN, and their GOAL is NOT "perpetuation of the SPECIES"... maybe perpetuation of their family name or to feel the wonders and fulfillment that come from bearing children, raising them and enjoying them.
But not, for crap's sake, "for the purpose of perpetuating the species."
And you may be "new around here," too, because if you'd been around enough, and met and talked with enough gays, lesbians and other flavors of LGBT's, I'll bet you that NONE of them would say "I suffer FROM homosexuality."
They may admit to suffering persecution and reduction of social and legal rights and privileges as a result of their homosexuality, but they do not suffer directly FROM being homosexual.
You can project that all you want, but it doesn't make it true, and even if you collect a lot of fellow travelers who agree, "consensus is NOT the same as truth or fact."
I don't play hide the banana. I'm hetero and my wife (actually, both of them) would attest to that, but nobody is FORCING YOU to accept the "changes in society."
Society is changing. You're the one who'll have to adapt or fade out. "Society" used to "accept" slavery as the norm. Society changed.
Some countries kill anyone who is vaguely homosexual. But look at the changes in state and federal laws over just the past few decades. You can accuse society of "decay" because of the increased acceptance of gays, but that doesn't make you right, either.
And I've written a lot about this on this and many other blog sites.
BTW, more and more science is proving ME right than proving your position.
Get over it if you want, or don't. I'm not forcing you to like it. I'm just encouraging you to open your mind to some new views.
I'm not optimistic, though.
The purpose of mating is not pleasure; mating is pleasureful IN ORDER to get creatures to procreate.
There was a study of heroin addicts, because they were the most recidivist. It turns out that the high one gets from heroin is most like the endorphin rush one gets from sexual climax. Which is why addictions exist.
Through the process of evolution, the intense, addictive pleasure of the sex act, which compels animals to copulate regardless of the personal threat or harm it may cause them (some insects continue mating even as their mate is eating them; eagles are sometimes killed because they begin mating in midair and won't stop until the act is completed or they become a stain on the ground below).
Romantic feelings, paternal and maternal instincts, likewise developed in many species, again, for the purpose of perpetuating the species. Such mating ensures the survival of the next generation to an age when they can, in turn, mate.
yes, they suffer from being homosexual, because it denies them the reward of mating and producing young.
Ever meet any homosexual couples who have BORNE children (yes, the females can and do) or adopted children to raise as "their own"?
Homosexuality "denies them the reward of mating and producing" is more BS, since (I trust) they can achieve a lot of pleasure from "mating activities" even if a person of the opposite gender is not there, AND they DO produce young!
In fact two of my favorite people in the world did exactly that. They have twins, and they call one "Mom" and they other "Mommy" and their kids are two of the nicest, brightest kids I know.
Get out more.
Sure, I'll get out more. Want to visit some BDSM clubs? Maybe we could visit a chapter meeting of NAMBLA? Or we could visit the zoo, if that's your thing.
There's no such thing as homosexual "couples". The children in question have a father, who is male (and who can be made legally responsible for them, in a wry twist of injustice). That they are denied their father is just yet another example of the failing of the mental/emotional illness.
What you are talking about is an application of technology. An application of technology attempting to get around the facts of nature.
A crutch to compensate for mental/emotional crippling.
That you like someone who suffers from homosexuality doesn't cure them. There are mental hospitals filled with people who are loved by someone; it doesn't cure them of their various problems. There are people out on the street with phobias, paranoias, obsessions, fetishes, who are loved by their friends and relatives. Doesn't make the phobias, paranoias, obsessions or fetishes go away.
The same is true of sexual deviancy.
Ciao.
Of course, if your belief system includes the idea of a Creator Whose Hand Is In The Game at all times, He/She obviously made sex pleasurable so His/Her Creations would "be fruitful and multiply."
Your position assumes a Prime Mover Designer who built the system with that purpose. If there is one, sure! If not, your argument falls apart.
Maybe a SurveyMonkey poll is in order..
"Why do/did you have children?
o Perpetuate the species
o It was an accident
o Wanted to bring wonderful children into the world
o Other ______
That should be fun!
Two animals may fuck because they want the high, just as an animal may shoot up heroin because he wants the high, That doesn't make pleasure the PURPOSE or the FUNCTION of the ACT.
I guess I have to teach bio 101 to you. See, daddy gets excited, and puts his thingy in mommy's special place, and pretty soon the drugs are released in his brain and he squirts his sperm into her.
IF she's in her fertile period (which in most mammals occurs during certain parts of the year), there will be an egg available for the sperm to invade. The resulting zygote becomes embedded in the wall of mommy's special place, and 9 months later she pushes out a baby.
This is the function of these organs. This is the function of the desire, of the endorphin rush, the addiction. To perpetuate the species. That it is not 100% successful all the time is a tribute to the sloppy nature of evolution.
You don't need to invoke God, though I am amused that you feel comfortable heaping scorn on religion but get your back up when I describe the true nature of homosexuality.
Did God create hunger? What is the function of hunger? To induce one to seek food and to eat. What is the purpose of the feeling of satiation? Again, to induce one to seek food and to eat.
This does not require divine intervention on the part of the Almighty. Hunger, thirst, lust, love, hate, envy, remorse, compassion, fear, cold, heat, loneliness, fellowship... all these feelings can be the inevitable result of the evolutionary process. If one doesn't ever get hungry,one doesn't eat, one dies. If one doesn't ever get thirsty, one doesn't drink, one dies. If hunger is particularly unpleasant for one, one is more intent upon seeking food. If sex is pleasurable for one, one seeks it more frequently and intently.
It doesn't matter why one has kids; evolution doesn't care about why, just so it happens.
My position assumes nothing about any intelligent designer.
Ciao.
And that's not bio 101... that's "facts of life" for a five-year-old's brain.
Ciao, again. Game over.
When did we loose the right to free association? Yes, the judge should be taken off the bench for violating the constitution which doesn't specifically give us the right to free association in those exact words, but historic rulings have certainly established that principle.
Fred Speckmann
It only protects pre-existing, God-given rights.
You are of course correct and my comment was directed more at the fact that the Constitution is being disregarded more every day. Of course since they are god given rights and the Atheist don't believe in god, one could argue that since they don't believe in god those rights don't exist for them either. Just joking.
Fred
Any "right" only written down in legal documents is a right granted by men, revokable by men. The wording of the Constitution makes it clear that the document does not grant rights, it grants powers, and protects rights, which can't be granted by men.
If men are equal, they cannot grant "rights" to other men.
Therefore, either rights come from God, or rights don't exist. Or men are not equal.
I already dealt with this in another thread.
"Rights" are a convenient fiction for allowing men to deal with one another. Without the authority of God behind them, the concept is meaningless.
In such a world, you have the "right" to do anything you have the *power* to do. You are denied the "right" to do anything you lack the *power* to do.
In such a world, I have the "right" to discriminate against whomever I choose for whatever reason I choose, so long as I have the power to enforce it. Thus, if a pair of homosexuals enter a bakery, the proprietor has the "right" to pull out a shotgun and help them back out the door.
There is nothing you can say in 'defense' of homosexuality that cannot be said in 'defense' of pedophilia, bestiality, or any of a thousand sexual "orientations".
Sexual appetites are sexual appetites, and if a homosexual can't "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex, then a pedophile can't "choose" to be attracted to children, or a bestial "choose" to be attracted to animals.
The difference being, we haven't been coerced and propagandized to accept bestiality or pedophilia as healthy and normal... yet.
Please explain to me the virtue that is bestowed upon an organization that seeks to control other people that it might be trusted with personal decisions above my own judgment?
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”
—Thomas Jefferson
1st Inaugural Address, 1801
- James Madison
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Eleanor Roosevelt, 'This Is My Story,' 1937
I really don't give... I mean I REALLY don't give a rat's posterior if people get hurt feelings because someone won't do business with them. Find someone else to do business with. Or go into competition and tap an obviously untapped market in that area.
The 'hurt'... (Oh whoa whoa whoa...)
As I keep saying, over and over and over, this screaming "discrimination" whenever a business owner doesn't capitulate against their own belief system with whomever walks through the doors of their business does NOT have the affect they are hoping for. I would venture to say it has the opposite affect. Live and let live...unless you refuse to make me a cake and then I'll ruin you!
This smells of Mob rule!
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4136/48134...
Maphesdus, you need to step out of your emotional based thinking and understand the nature of rights. While the gay couple may have had their feelings hurt, no force was used against them. Now the shop owner is being forced, at the threat of a fine, which is equivalent to a portion of his life if he doesn't serve the gay couple. You don't have the "right" to do business with anyone that doesn't of his own free will choose to serve you. If you claim that a person choosing to refrain from service, even for prejudiced or biased reasons must serve another, even if it can be morally shown that the bias is immoral, you are still using the ends to justify the means.
If the means are not moral, the ends cannot be justified. Denial of rights, for the sake of someone's definition of Utopia is not justifiable and the Gay's rights are not being violated any more than a black man's would have been, or any other "protected" group. Yes, people should be allowed to make their own decisions. In private enterprise they should be able to express their prejudice or bias and they should not be protected from the ills that their irrational behavior will inevitably bring upon them.
How you can suggest that the shop owner is the instigator, the bully is beyond me. I honestly don't understand how you came to be on this site. You are obviously no Objectivist.
Fred
And you're right, I'm not an Objectivist, though I do consider myself a capitalist. I came to this site because I found Atlas Shrugged to be an entertaining story and an admirable criticism of socialism. Yet in spite of that, I find many parts of Objectivism to be self-contradictory and impractical. But I also enjoy debate, and discussing the pros and cons of Objectivism wouldn't be possible anywhere except on an Objectivist forum.
Enumerate them.
And if he does not do business with them, they are NOT his customers.
A businessman can choose his product and price, but he cannot choose his customers.
A businessman, as with any laborer, can choose his customers.
I cannot be compelled to wax the floors at Target.
Also, the regulations which govern the behavior of an employee must naturally be different from the regulations which govern the employer.
If you rape a woman and then toss her $100.00 afterwords is she a prostitute or a victim???
You're rape analogy is more like breaking into someone's house and stealing things that weren't for sale to anyone and leaving money.
She can't discriminate between you and her husband, after all.
---
Um, yes, actually it is, if your reason is based on prejudice or bias...
Maph...what label should be put on legally forcing someone to do business with another even though it's against their personal judgement? Hmm, what should we call that...?
Fred
Laws and regulations are not the antithesis of freedom, but rather the legal shield by which freedoms are protected. Without any legal code to lay down the line regarding what a man may not do, those who are harmed by the actions of another would have no legal recourse for seeking justice.
Please see this topic:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/28...
What did humanity do before there were laws?
Which is why we have the Russian Doll model for American society.
I agree that there must be a basis, but whether or not force is involved isn't it. The correct basis should be whether or not the action causes harm to another person.
Are hurt feelings harm? How about lower self esteem? who is the arbiter of what "harm" is?
You are not free to not be offended. there is no demonstrable right to be free from being offended, nor is there any right to be universally liked. People must be allowed to determine their own values and act accordingly. If you deny that, then there is no freedom and there is no individuality. Where does it stop? Who decides? Society? A simple majority? A super majority? How many men does it take to vote the panties off of an unwilling woman?
Suppose she spurns my advances but accepts the advances of a man who happens to be of another race? That's racism, isn't it?
Fred
The unalienable rights are cited in the DoI as being life, liberty and *pursuit* of happiness.
Fred
Fred
Furthermore, I would be happy to write you a civil union contract that will stand up in any court in the land, this land that is. As "uncommon sense" has tried to tell you, try and get married in any Muslim Mosque anywhere in the world. why is it that these protests are always directed at Christian and their churches in this nation of tolerance. that does not mean that everyone is as tolerant as you want them to be. On the other hand I seldom see tolerance exhibited by militant LGBT's and whatever other acronym you want to be known as. I would wager that you didn't loose your job as you claim because you are gay or whatever else you wish to be, but because of your militant attitude towards everyone.
Having written those words, I again wish you god speed and a happy and successful life. Perhaps you should try a little better and more lighthearted attitude. you can't change who and what you are, but you can keep it out of everyone's face at all times.
Fred
It's stalking when you pursue me with nonsense arguments and outright distortions.
You haven't corrected one thing I've said. You're not holding my Christianity in any light; you're flinging poo; rather poor quality poo at that.
I am not an Evangelical, nor am I a Catholic, nor am I an Anglican, nor am I a Greek Orthodox.
None of their belief systems have anything to do with me.
I am not interested in debating your hatred for all things Christian. This thread is not about me, nor about my beliefs, but about some assholes trying to force a bakery to affirm their twisted compulsion. Stick to the topic.
I'm well aware that Ayn Rand was an atheist. So was Carl Sagan. A lot of otherwise smart people held false and often idiotic beliefs; the world is full of Wiccans, Scientologists, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, and atheists. They can't all be right, especially since *I'm* right.
Rand was wrong about many things; she was a woman with insight, not a messiah. I do not worship at her feet as some here might, or as you might worship at the feet of Obama.
It's amusing that you think it appropriate for you to denigrate my faith "around here", and yet you continue to prattle your evil philosophy of socialism around here... and Rand certainly wasn't a socialist.
So, you're a childish, hypocritical poo-flinger.
In the words of Hank Rearden... we're done here.
FAIL. good gravy-those are belief systems. atheism is NOT a belief system.
It may be based upon doubt rather than faith, but it's a belief. And it's not Christianity as I understand it.
I'm not going to enter a debate over the merit of atheism, but I will point out that the brand of atheism likely practiced around here is based upon faith in a rational world.
atheism properly defined means without a belief in god.
For example: http://www.holy-trinity.org/morality/hom...
Your "faith" incorporates organized bigotry here in America. I find that sad. Remember, render unto Cesar.
For crying out loud, the baker could have been a Scientologist and the result would have been the same from the court.
Fred
So, there were these white kids and black kids arguing over who was going to sit next to whom, and so on.
The bus driver, he's had enough of the bickering and says to the kids, "Look! I'm tired of this stuff! Nobody's black or white on this bus! You're all... green! Y'got that? You're all GREEN!"
"Now... all you light green kids go to the front of the bus, and all you dark green kids go to the back of the bus..."
What runs roughshod over the Constitution is trying to trump it with religious mumbo jumbo. America doesn't follow yours or any other religion.
We have the freedom of association, which means we get to CHOOSE with whom we associate, by whatever criteria we CHOOSE.
When the government forces little black girls to travel for an hour (or more) to attend a school in an environment so hostile that National Guardsmen are required in the girls bathroom, when neither she nor her parents want her to attend this school, particularly as a new, superior school closer to home has been provided... yeah, that's riding roughshod over the Constitution.
If one truly believes, for example, that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet, you can't be really tolerant of other beliefs; you're right and everyone else is wrong... or vice versa. Doesn't mean you have to kill people who don't believe as you do, but it does require that you don't give other beliefs the same gravity as your own.
You're another one of the Humpty-Dumpty people, aren't you?
If it's a personal choice, the court would force women to serve rapists, blacks to serve KKK members and Republicans to serve Democrats… all cases of a self-selected group being served by those who abhor them.
But if being queer is a medical condition, then one has to wonder if the individual is having that condition treated? If an unbathed customer with oozing pustules and putrefying flesh brought on by their own failure to bathe, sought service in a restaurant - would the owner have to serve them? Keep in mind that the person has done nothing to correct their own unsanitary condition.
Clearly, if someone has an untreatable condition, or has sought treatment, discrimination is unwarranted. If someone has lost a limb, or is blind, there's nothing they can do about it. If they've sought treatment for a skin disease - to no avail - it only compounds their misery to deny service.
So have the queers sought treatment? Is research being done on a cure for being queer? Does Obamacare cover the cost of de-queering?
In the context of this story though, what I'm saying is I reserve the right to choose who I allow to be the beneficiary of my labor and my mind. No man or institution can lay claim to me.
Need I elaborate?
Belief systems (rational or not) are yours to own and exercise. As long as your actions aren't aggressive, your beliefs should be accepted by others.
It's too bad it doesn't go that way for Christians. The LGBT community needs to learn to hear and understand that the word "no" is simply a boundary.
"Intolerance" is what Islamists have for everyone else. They don't accept that others disagree with them AT ALL and the net result is your and my death.
That's aggressive ... and the ultimate evil.
It took me until the age of 35 to learn that the word "no" was simply a boundary around what I should and shouldn't do for what's good for me. It has nothing to do with "bullying" or "aggression".
Wait 'til the Taliban and Islamists decide YOU'RE in a group that should be eliminated if YOU don't convert to THEIR beliefs.
As it was said... "but then there was nobody left to speak up for ME... and they took me away, too."
Beware unintended consequences of "good ideas." Sure as hell most of the government doesn't...
I'm already in a group that would be executed by the Taliban and as far as I'm concerned I have no desire to tolerate their nonsense.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04...
http://www.towleroad.com/2013/05/hanson....
Personally, I am siding with the bakery people. Each business owner has a fundamental right to decide who they want to serve and sell to. If enough bakers refuse, then some gay baker will open up shop and cater to a niche group of his own, and do just fine. But, just like not approving of 9200.00 an hour CEO's, I may not approve of people who discriminate, either, but he may still make some damn good cakes. Acceptance does not constitute approval. Everyone has a choice. of course in oregon, it seems your choice must either be hard left, or hard right. It's the weather, it polarizes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR3MgIPxb...
Freedom, its a double edge sword. You have the freedom to make stupid choices, but you don't have the freedom to avoid the consequences.
If you choose to be a bigot society will disapprove here in America.
Actually it is. Equal treatment under law. Marriage is a CIVIL contract in the eyes of the government.
2) there is no such thing as "same sex marriage".
Please include the words "in your religion" so's not to confuse people. Remember, marriage is a CIVIL contract.
In America we are ruled by laws and the laws in many states says the contract between some of the same sex is OK.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make the name fit.
You can call baptism a sales receipt... doesn't make it so.
In America we are ruled by the Constitution, which grants limited power to government. We are not ruled by any law which exceeds those powers granted by the Constitution.
Question asked: "How did the cake come into existence?"
Maybe it was your christian god made it!
Demand made: "Answer the question, Dr Potter..."
Might that be a Harry Potter reference? Hmmmmm... Is Harry sinful?
"So you're saying that if the plantation owners paid the slaves in the antebellum South, it wouldn't have been slavery?"
Actually I'm not. What occurred was slave owners bought them from each other, at auction, or bred them. They sold human beings.
The BAKER is selling a cake at fair market value. Completely different concept.
"I asked whether you are saying that if the slaves would have been paid, would they have still been slaves?"
Obviously yes. The slaves are property intended to be bought and sold. I'll bet you would have advocated that the ending of slavery would have been denial of ownership and illegal taking of property had you been in the South. You haven't said otherwise so it's rather vague.
"Clue: slaves have no intrinsic value. Their value lies in their labor."
Absolutely false. Folks traded, auctioned, and bred slaves for the profit they could make in selling them. They were transported strictly for sale and not worked at all on ships. They were a speculative commodity.
"Clue: a slave is someone who is forced to obey another's will to another's profit or benefit. Remuneration has nothing to do with it."
Actually there are records of some slaves being treated much better by owners based upon incentives, a form of remuneration. Why do you presume that an owner can't bargain with a slave for better performance? Wouldn't a breeder produce more for the privilege?
But, the customer doesn't own the baker. Fair remuneration was offered for the product, thus the baker is not a slave by any stretch of the imagination, except perhaps yours.
Prostitution should be legal. Folks should be allowed to sell whatever talents they have as long as it doesn't hurt another. (Hit man is an excellent example of where another would be hurt).
Arguments extremes don't make any points. Pushing things to absurdity just shows how desperate one is to make any "argument."
Americans are "forced" by social contract to do many things. Taxes, speed limits, clearing sidewalks of snow... I don't feel "owned" when I follow these conventions.
America has been built following a path of equality and non-discrimination. To violate that is simply un-American.
If the govt can force the baker to perform the baker should be allowed to force you to buy his cake. Just like with Obamacare. This is where your logic above leads. Just because YOU don't feel owned, does not mean taxes, clearing the sidewalk of snow (govt enforcement is very inefficient in this particular case-always is), obeying speed limits(also arbitrary and inefficient enforcement) make ME Owned. Note the objective reality of the government owning by these "conventions" as you refer to them and your subjective reality of not "feeling" owned.
"Social contract" is a concept that originates with Locke. It did not allow unbridled govt to impose whatever people vote for. Number 1 thing social contract is to do is to protect property rights.
If I own myself, I own the product of my labor, and I own the right to decide who I associate with. Anything that violates those tenets means I do not own myself. Straightforward logic.
It is necessary for all to have access to health care to make sure disease isn't spread as much as it otherwise might be and the pool of workers remains healthy.
Oh, in America we treat folks equally. To deny another because of religion, sexuality, or many other reasons is simply unAmerican.
For his work a fair market value was offered.
In America we respect each other. It's part of being an American. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
You might want to check the context on that quote, there, poo-flinger.
Are you advocating that folks disobey the law in the name of your religion? What if they don't subscribe to your religion? Remember, America doesn't have a state religion.
Things do change. It is getting better. But when someone can simply attempt to trump our laws with their religion they should fail. We are not a theocracy and a "religious" excuse for anything IMO is quite lame.
Oh, wait, we're not asking irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with the discussion? Sorry, you had me fooled there for a second.
I guess you can't be bothered to investigate the context of Jesus' comment you so love to quote.
Bullshit. I didn't say slaves weren't ever sold; I said their value lay in their labor, which it did. I said VALUE, not PROFIT.
Slave owners did NOT buy slaves from one another at auction. They bought them from the slavers at auction.
"Might that be a Harry Potter reference? Hmmmmm... Is Harry sinful? "
This is why I can identify you as a child. Either, as a child, you came here ignorant of Atlas Shrugged, but desiring to irritate the grownups, or you know damn well the Dr Potter reference and choose, once again, to be childishly irritating.
"The slaves are property intended to be bought and sold."
Wrong. The slaves are property intended to be utilized. Nobody buys a slave to have his lazy ass sitting around the plantation drinking mint juleps.
"Actually there are records of some slaves being treated much better by owners based upon incentives, a form of remuneration. Why do you presume that an owner can't bargain with a slave for better performance? Wouldn't a breeder produce more for the privilege? "
False assertion and false attribution.
Again... how is any of this different than what happened to the bakery... or for that matter, Hank Rearden?
"Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent." An adequate definition of slavery.
The government has stepped in and required the bakery to perform labor it does not wish to perform; as you yourself so thoughtfully pointed out, a slave *can* be remunerated.
If the bakery should choose NOT to make the cake, upon being ordered to do so by the government, they will be punished just as surely as any slave who refused to work.
No, the assholes didn't own the bakers. Nobody said they did. The *government* is the owner of the bakers.
You keep saying "fair remuneration". Fair by *who's* reckoning? If the reckoning is anyone other than the bakers', then again, they are slaves.
There used to be a christian sect that didn't eat meat on Fridays. The PUBLIC school cafeteria where I went followed that RELIGION. I like meat, even on Fridays. Why should I have been forced to abide by their religion in public school?
Same thing with school prayer. Why should I be forced to participate in any religious ritual? Oops, that one has been fixed.
The death with dignity has been opposed by religious interests viciously in any state where it has come up. Although I'm undecided in this moment while I am healthy I may want a graceful exit from this life some day. I know of an ALS patient who wanted to go and was tortured for the last 6 months of his life not being allowed to go.
Ever heard of blue laws? Some are still around purely religiously based.
Why am I forced to bend knee to the Green religion? Why am I denied decent lightbulbs because of the faith of the Earth worshippers?
Why wait? You wanted to know if there was life after death... go find out. I'll wait here.
Again, your reply has nothing to do with what I said in the message to which you reply.
I repeat my question, what effect has vorpal blade had on your life?
You are correct in "influence" to the extent that the Supreme Court allows. Equality has long ben the preference of the SCOTUS.
Now, where is that recipe for "Homocake"?
Ah! Here it is! Let's see… 3 pounds of salt...
millions of gamers will have a huge lawsuit against Aperture Science in general and GlaDOS in particular....
Because... as everyone finds out after it's too late...
The cake is a lie...
Load more comments...