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.
Previous comments...
That said, the only issue worth discussing is the court's ruling. The rest is crap (so to speak).
How is it a violation of conscience to make food for someone who in your mind just happens to be a 'sinner'? Where is the Biblical justification for it? Question, does this baker sit down with other couples who are heterosexual and ask if they had premarital sex before the wedding? If he doesn't do that, then I don't think his position is valid. You have to be consistent if you're going to make this argument on a 'Christian conscience'.
The customers have all the power here, though--they have the money. If this business doesn't want the money, why not gladly take your money elsewhere? I've encountered the indignity of not being served like other customers because of my skin color, but I would hardly feel it necessary to take the matter to court if there is a more suitable business that will serve me regardless of skin color.
This does, of course, bring back that segregation problem that denied many people in America the right to offer their value, their money, in exchange for goods and services. On one hand, yes, blacks in this country could indeed go to a business that served them instead to a business that would refuse. The issue for me here is, how is it moral to refuse to trade with someone on the basis of something you just don't happen to like about them?
If it's immoral to force the business to trade with these people, then is it equally immoral for the business to refuse to trade on the basis of a superficial judgment? I mean, I don't think it's right for a court to force this guy to make a cake for these people, certainly not when they have other options, and frankly, I wouldn't want this guy to make me a cake if it was my wedding.
I can think of a scenario that fits here, and it calls to mind my own past religious upbringing as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. In my case, I'll just use my own true story as an example. It was probably known or at least inferred that I had sex before marriage, with the woman I was about to marry. If I asked a JW who was a baker and happened to know that, hey, can you make the wedding cake for my wedding? He would almost certainly say no for the a similar reason as this baker, his moral disagreement with my having had premarital sex. Could I then go to court and force him to make me a cake? Should I? The answer in that situation is definitely no, for me. If a similar logic applies here, then it's definitely better for me to go to a different baker than it is for me to force this man to violate his conscience. It would be the same as me going to court to order a JW to say hello to me, even though doing so at this point would be against his conscience because I'm no longer one of them. I could never support using the court to force someone in that way. It sets a dangerous precedent; I'm not sure how, but it does.
Mind you, this is very different from the segregation issue, to comment on that further, in the sense that this is not a scenario where the couple cannot go get a cake except from other gay people or from stores that are marked 'Gay Only' or something ridiculous like that. This is one business that makes cakes, saying no.
Perhaps in thinking out loud here, I've agreed with discrimination. If this was the only baker around, and nobody else knew how to bake cakes, well, I guess we'd be having a more interesting conversation. But cake is cake. If this guy's going to be this way about it, well, firstly that's not even any of his business, and secondly, whatever! Go get a cake from somewhere else, why harass this guy who is clearly playing by his own rules? He's not going to feel differently about gays on account of it, he's going to hate them even more.
I personally find the baker's moral viewpoint to be invalid and unsupportable even by his Christian faith, but I don't think the answer is to use force against him. Reason, perhaps, or simply acknowledge his right to refuse to trade and go trade with someone else.
In (not so) short, I think it's a case of two wrongs not making a right. The baker's view is wrong, as Jesus would say that God makes it rain upon the righteous and the wicked, so who are you to refuse food to someone because you view them as a greater sinner than yourself? The court is wrong for trampling on his freedom of conscience. If he believes that, he is not in himself destroying this couple's right to eat cake. ("Right to eat cake"? It used to be rights that people fought for were a little more vital than that. How the mighty have fallen...I'll bet Congress couldn't even pass a bill on that particular right without hours of debate...) They still have that right, as they have the right to get the cake made by someone else.
Nobody said that is was "moral" to do so. What we've said is that forcing them to serve is immoral. The concern is not with the man's belief system, or lack of action. The concern is with the government denying someone the right to choose their own values and forcing them to serve someone else who stands contradictory to them.
Imagine a Klan group in full regalia going to the local black owned BBQ joint. I'd imagine that the owners would like to have the right to refuse service right?
You alluded to something that I think is important. You said "If this was the only baker around and nobody else knew how to bake cakes... But cake is cake". Does this mean if I know the cure for cancer its ok to coerce me to share it, or that you'd be justified in torturing it out of me? How many men does it take, to properly and democratically vote the panties off an unwilling woman?
At what point is it right to deny a person their rights for the unearned gain of others?
You're a hypocrite.
Get to the back of the bus. We don't like the way you look.
If my taxi company does not want to pick up people who dress like they are in a gang-maybe yours will-maybe your service costs more to cover your perceived risk in taking that particular fare. I may very well shut the door to my business and say closed if I see a group of thug "looking" individuals come to my door. My loss of business but perhaps another's opportunity.
Personally, I do not support businesses that have the christian fish symbol on their advertising. It's annoying to me that businesses feel all secure in their dealings if supporting other Christians. You have no idea how that person runs their business unless they have a much more objective reputation than simply "christian" business owner. I am discriminating. I bet you do it all the time.
I disagree with their decision, but I respect their right to associate freely.
During the presidential campaign, a restaurateur in Florida and Iowa refused to host campaign dinners set up for Romney staffers. Their reason was they were Obama supporters and did not like Romney. One was a mexican restaurant. So, if you were a sympathizing latino supporter of amnesty for illegals, and felt candidate Romney strongly supported deportation and tougher immigration laws, could you see accommodating his staffers as a reputation or personal belief threat? btw, not a peep out of the left on that one and Candidate Romney and his staff graciously picked another restaurant in BOTH cases. No one drug business owners into court over it.
However, nobody has explained the harm in a cake. In fact they could take the money from the cake and send it the Fred Phelps.
The baker has not demonstrated any damage to themselves resulting from selling the cake. In America we don't discriminate because of things that can't hurt us.
Please don't try to confuse or conflate.
You said money was taken out of your pocket.
How?
I think that's all you really needed to say, and sums it up perfectly. The only issue worthy of note is the court's decision. It initiated force on behalf of the bogus "victims" and turned the baker into the real "victim". This doesn't help the gay community, and it undermines confidence in the judicial system.
Did he sit down and ask if the two homosexuals were homosexual and planning on getting married? I'm pretty sure they *told* him the situation.
And I'm pretty sure that fornication is not quite as bad on the sin scale as homosexuality.
A couple who "jumped the gun" can't really be equated with homosexuality.
Besides, who are YOU to be judge? Isn't there something in them there scriptures that says something like don't judge others or you will be judged...
Oh, there it is! Mathew 7, "1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. "
So, is your judging a sin?
(yellow tags denote food whose expiration date has arrived).
That'll be adequate.
An out of date cake won't give anyone VD. So, a hooker can still refuse a client.
According to the conservative-libertarian theory you have right to be an idiot. According to Objectivism, you do not. The political right to stupidity remains, of course, but a deeper issue is called to the question.
If a cake-maker wishes to decline a sale to a "gay" couple, that might be their political right. But their decision is evidence of a pre-conceptual, pre-industrial mentality and should be identified as such.
I think it depends on agreement. Personally, I would not agree to be in an open marriage, but as long as the two people in a marriage agree to other arrangements, I'm not sure why that would constitute as immoral. Rand's personal choices are not relevant to the court case discussed here. Ultimately, a judge ruled on perceived harm(no harm was committed against the couple, but the judge's fear that some harm someday might happen with frequency) and perceived threat to society(societies don't have rights only individuals) keep on point
Again, what's the harm in any way by selling the cake?
I gave two possible harms as examples from the bakers' point of view. I pointed out in two other examples of where restaurants refused to accommodate a campaign for political reasons and you haven't commented on either.
Now, explain what harm the baker suffers selling a cake?
Nobody "forced" the baker to go into business and serve to the public. If he were a baker at a country club that had a limited membership the circumstances might be different, but he opened to all of the public just like the lunch counters in the South did. Discrimination in America is a bad thing.
This concept only worked with the local government as complicit. People were bullied to comply with such evil and the government did not enforce property rights. ex: I am a business owner in the south. I see an opportunity for business to catering to a group for whatever reason. My neighbors attempt to "chill" me from extending a profitable business concept in my local market, by vandalism or other means. The means are all force and law enforcement does not protect my rights. That is exactly what went on in the south. Private businesses turn down business everyday of the week. It's none of your business or mine why.
So, tell me, what evil is projected by selling a wedding cake?
Those "political" reasons would have a direct impact upon traditional marriage that the owner was concerned about if he agreed to make a cake supporting a very politically charged issue such as gay marriage. Note-gays do not accept union, partnership, contract, etc. Thus,they weren't going to "help" by providing a a cake within witch evil (in his mind) will occur.
Additionally you have twisted my words here. Do not equate morality with legality, or immorality with illegality.
You speak of a peaceful and orderly society, by what measure? My what standard? A standard where I am forced to produce for those I may find to be contrary to my beliefs? What gives you or anyone else the right to hold your beliefs yet deny a christian man a right to his?
What kills me here is that you see a refusal to do business, which happens everyday for any number of reasons, as a mistreatment or a violation of rights, simply because of the specific reason for the refusal, which is to say YOU WANT TO IMPOSE YOUR BELIEFS ON ANOTHER PERSON AND THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIRS BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG.
What if the Gay couple couldn't afford the cake? Should the court order it to be sold at a cheaper rate, or should we pass ObamaCake legislation so that everyone will have to "spread the cake around"?
Here is the deal Maphesdus, neither you, nor anyone else has a "right" to anything I produce, or a right to my ideas, or a right to my life. No man or woman holds a mortgage on my existence, and I hold no such mortgage on any one else.
Just because a group, or society says they have a right "legally" doesn't make it moral. How many men would it take to democratically vote the panties of an unwilling woman?
The other version is that same sex couples should be treated as any other couples thus insuring harmony in the society where religious bigotry isn't tolerated.
Sticks and stones....
Suppose the bakery owner had done some time in prison. Suppose further, and this is not such a big stretch, that he was gang raped while in prison. Think Andy Dufresne in "Shawshank Redemption".
Do you still, under those circumstances, think he should be forced to be reminded of his horrible experience, in order for a couple of weirdos to flip their noses at society?
Alternate example: Say the baker is a black woman who was brutally raped by white men... should she have to produce a cake for white men, when she doesn't want to associate with them because of the post traumatic stress it activates?
Even if they were would you deny someone with cancer and think they were "immoral" for getting sick? What about someone injured in an accident not of their fault? Or is it only the "sickness" of same sex couples you are bigoted against because of your religion?
How "Christian" of you to work so hard to run down the (alleged) sick.
If joining a Buddhist monastery makes me happy... how can it be immoral?
Are you suggesting that sadists and masochists don't exist? That the BDSM community is a myth?
Market discrimination based upon whatever criteria I choose makes me happy.
Henry Rearden refused to sell his metal to the State Science Institute for no better reason than his personal resentment of their earlier attempt to sabotage his sales. The State Science Institute was willing to pay him handsomely for his metal.
Somehow, I don't find it immoral that he wouldn't do business with a group of people he didn't like for what seems to me to be frivolous reasons.
There is no such thing as "political rights" (just as there's no such thing as "gay couples").
There are only God-given rights.
If you don't have the right to be an idiot... exactly how are you to be prevented from being an idiot without someone else imposing his will and his value system upon you?
Ayn Rand was an atheist. America is NOT a theocracy.
May I suggest you quit making stuff up?
Big difference.
In this case, if there are flaws in Libertarianism that are irreconcilable with Objectivism, and if Libertarianism is still the closest approximation to an Objectivist political agenda, it stands to reason that correcting Libertarianism is a higher priority than rehashing Maph's argument for democracy ad nauseam.
I'll take back my vote if the counter voter takes back their counter vote.
Now I'll demonstrate my own idiocy in 2008 (before I self-identified as Objectivist). My wife was dealing with cancer (a tumor on her appendix) that was incorrectly diagnosed as endometriosis. She had been dealing with enormous pain that she rarely complained about. She went in for non-invasive endometriosis surgery where the surgeon, after burning out bits of endometrial tissue, found the tumor. 2 hours into the surgery, the doctor came out and told me that her husband (also a surgeon) was free to come in and remove the tumor. I consented, and it was removed. Many hours later, my wife returned to me after what seemed like hours of fear.
At the time, her employer covered every penny of her medical bills.
McCain, if you recall, was proposing a $5,000 tax credit for medical expenses. I "felt" that a tax credit for medical expenses would result in employers ceasing to offer health insurance (in hindsight, I see that free-market, non-employer based health insurance was always an option). I "felt" that employer provided healthcare was moral. I was wrong.
To be fair, I was also smitten with Tina Fey at the time (geek that I am). Needless to say, I voted for Obama in 2008 for these 2 reasons alone. They were stupid. Tina Fey destroyed Palin through satire, and anti-McCain was, by default, pro-Obama. How many of us (ignorant or emotional voters) "really" knew that Obama was the worse of 2 evils?
My wife didn't falter. She voted for McCain, and for the first time, we cancelled each other's votes (not that it mattered - we're in a blue state).
We had a bump in our marriage after all of this (including her hysterectomy that she planned and discussed with others before me, but where I took nearly a month off of work to care for her). We reconciled everything, and improved our health and our philosophical values in spite of the significant (maybe enormous by other measures) emotional pain.
I did not vote for Obama again.
Had I known then, what I know now, I might have scrutinized Obama's healthcare plan and seen that it was just the natural extension of FDR's communist infiltrated regime favoring socialism (yes, read Harry Hopkins was a Soviet sympathizer, and (not to put too fine a point on it), spy), and rejected it outright, as every U.S. Citizen (including Objectivists) should have.
Then again, how many of us really knew who/what Obama was?
Yes, I regret it. This is all the more reason for a 3rd party. I'm pretty damned smart, but intelligence has nothing to do with knowledge or philosophy.
A Libertarian political party infused with Objectivist philosophy "should" be a force to be reckoned with.
Please point out any errors in that conclusion.
Objectivism is not apolitical. On the contrary "Objectivism holds that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws," the executive, and legislatures. Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens" (take from The Virtue of Selfishness)
And for the record, today's Libertarian party and those who identify with it are far less anarchistic, and generally do believe in private property rights. Its not the same as the party Rand was referring to in the 60's. Much more disenfranchised fiscal conservative/social liberal individualists.
I think that our current political system is so jaded and fixed that Objectivists are reluctant to join in. I should point out that Rand was negative about Libertarians. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p...
I think the most telling point is that there is a whole group of libertarians who are essentially anarchist. While they do not condone force, they neither are willing to protect property rights. Objectivists demand property rights be enforced. It is a moral basis for any society.
We maybe should start a new post on this-might get more Objectivists to comment. I'll let you do the honors.
now to your wife. what a trying time for your family and very scary. I hope she is doing well now. Major traumatic events in marriages try the marriage.The factthat you both worked through that difficult time says alot about both of you. I admire your courage.
You said when you first came into the site that you were vehemently apolitical. I remember challenging you on this. If A is A, it's in anyone's rational self interest to understand what's happening not only in their world but other people's worlds as far as politics. The McCain/Obama dilemma was frightening. IT speaks to where we have moved in this country. Left of center to far left. But also there is the ruling class. We have become so fat and happy with our lives we have ignored important freedoms that have been removed from the people to a few fat and happy political bastards. The exact opposite of the founder's intentions in setting up our very delicate Constitution and Bill of Rights (certain ones). Now we are enjoying the consequences of our lazy ass protection of rights. It's why I left the country. No one can hang their hat on one issue to vote. Even if it is a mighty important hat in your closet currently. Because tomorrow you will want to wear another hat and find you are not allowed to. just trip the light fantastic with me on that hashed metaphor
Thanks for asking. When is your next Hank Ragnar (um, I mean Rangar) book due out? Can I get a sneak peak if I'm really nice to you?
::raises hand::
But, on the other hand, I still think Tina Fey is cute... on the outside.
Refusing your services to those you perceive harming you may well be a good offense in the intellectual war. Now, I dismiss their claim, if they say harm-but I absolutely support their right to choose association.
No wait that doesn't make sense because the only things people can't discriminate against is sex, race, and religion right? And the disabled. Forgot that one. And they can't discriminate against the fore mentioned because it's irrational. So we can't discriminate against something unless it's irrational.
So it's rational to refuse service to a nazi because he is irrational. However the nazi can not refuse service to the jew because it's irrational.
Hey Maph are you allowed to discriminate when you're selling your body? Like a prostitute? Logically I think it would be wrong. If we can't discriminate with what we do with the products of our body, we shouldn't be allowed to discriminate with our bodies themselves. I mean, property is property. My body is my body, my bakery is my bakery.
Ok so if we can't discriminate with our property this should include what we do with our everyday actions and speech. If someone of another ethnicity wants to talk to me, it would be discrimination for me to not reciprocate the conversation.
Yeah, they should just outlaw racism, sexism, and anti religious people. Anyone showing a tendencies towards these types of behavior should definitely be reprimanded in some way.
That is seriously what you sound like to me man.
If you must tolerate everything in order not to offend, then you must bake a gun shaped cake for the kid's birthday party if that's what he wants. When the courts charge in and outlaw gun shaped cakes to appease angry parents, the hypocrisy of liberal tolerance becomes evident, as does the never ending chore of regulating the baker's activities to keep step with political correctness.
If the courts are in the business of forcing bakers to cater to any single client, they must be in the business of forcing bakers to cater to every single client. Isn't this exactly why government grows under liberal "tolerance"? Liberal government is super-daddy for anyone whose daddy doesn't give them what they want. It caters to those that whine the most and act the most injured when it should stay focused on identifying and punishing true harm (initiation of force and breach of contract).
Discrimination in private life is also completely different from discrimination in the public domain. If you discriminate in your own personal life, then you would still be a bigot, but you wouldn't be harming anyone except yourself. No harm, no foul. But in the public sector, such as business, where everyone interacts with each other, discrimination can absolutely be detrimental to the person being discriminated against, and therefore discrimination should rightfully be outlawed in the pubic sphere.
Distinction between private and public spheres explained:
http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy/util...
private enterprise
private transactions
Public only applies to governmental actions, not private citizens.
"Public Sphere" and "Public Property" are two entirely different concepts.
http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy/util...
Payment is only one part of a contract.
This is the sort of thinking that leads to the idea that govt can discriminate against YOU. If you are a member of a tea party group who's 501C 4 status has been held up, that's what you're thinking. where is their remedy? Haven't seen one yet.
Some Questions:
Is it wrong to discriminate on an individual basis as long as it is not applied to groups i.e. sex, race, religion etc.?
Does a bar owner have the right to refuse service to someone that repeatedly in the past, has gotten unruly and fought with other customers?
Can a coffee house discriminate and refuse service to a bum that repeatedly comes into the store smelling like a toilet and running off all of the customers although the business owner happily admits other bums that don't?
Does the New York Times have to accept business from a bunch of "extremists" when they want to take out a front page add that denigrates the lifestyles of LGBTs?
Just trying to understand...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Have one of the homosexuals undergo "sex-reassignment" surgery. Then they will no longer be a same-sex couple, and he can bake the cake for them.
Simple, no?
Though it only works if one of the partners was born in a state that allows residents to change the sex listed on their birth certificate. And even then it's possible that courts in other states will refuse to acknowledge the change of gender as valid (there's actually a case in Texas right now concerning this exact issue).
Is this right or am I still way off. Just give me a premise to work with.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/d...
Because you're a female, you can murder the funny-looking and inconvenient.
But I can't do the same thing, and I'm *surrounded* by the funny-looking and inconvenient every day...
Not fair, I tell ya...
"Religious freedom" is not an all-encompassing right to do whatever the hell you want without limitation. There are still laws which bind even religion and churches. For example, we don't allow human sacrifices, not even if a person has a deep religious conviction about preforming them.
Would you want to allow al-Qaeda freedom to kill Americans because their religion (a perverted form of Islam) demands it of them? No, of course not. Even religious freedom must have rational limitations placed on it.
"Rational limitations." that is not protection of natural rights. that is what our country was founded on-and yes the founders were aware that the Constitution was in direct conflict with slavery. you can be religious whatever-you may not take away my natural rights. I have a natural right to free association personally and in business.
I think Ayn Rand was an excellent author and story teller, but a terrible philosopher, and her political and economic theory is deeply flawed and unworkable on many levels. But I do love her stories, and I wish there were other authors who would step up and promote capitalism and entrepreneurship like she does, just without the illogical arguments.
Of her philosophy and Objectivism, she was ready to remind the reader / listener -- you have no right to initiate the use of force. This can "seem" to get complicated in how we define "force" and the word "initiation." For example, should you find yourself in a situation where winter is coming on and you have insufficient food-stores for your family to the extent that starvation is imminent, you have no right to exercise the use of force to compel me to sell you a portion of my food stocks. Your inability to plan ("initiation") is not a lien ("force") against my exercised capacity to live a well-planned and intended life.
Which part of this are you not getting? YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THE FRUITS OF MY LABOR. If I produce something, it is mine to share or not-share, trade or not-trade, based upon whatever criteria I choose. *I* choose.
If I choose to sell only to blondes, because they make me weak in the knees, that's my business. If I choose to sell only to Asian women, because I think they're cute, that's my business. If I choose to NOT sell to tall, white men, because they intimidate me, that *also* is my business.
I can see your philosophy working in fashion and in Hollywood. Suing movie producers and casting directors for not hiring fat, ugly people for starring roles.
Suing fashion shows for not including short, dumpy, pimple-faced gits among the models...
Seriously, you'd compel a Palestinian to do business with Jews? You'd compel Jews to do business with skinheads? Most unforgivable of all, you'd force conservatives to do business with communists??
And that's pretty much what Ayn Rand was about.
When she stepped out of economics she herself was an atheist and probably had little desire to listen to your proclamations about such.
If you don't like me taking your religion and expressing truth about it perhaps you might consider not bringing it up around here.
BTW, how's that cannibalism thing going? Remember that there transubstantiation thing? Literally the body and blood! Oh myyyy, I wouldn't want my kids exposed to that.
BTW, thanks for demonstrating the name calling again. At least I don't rely upon an invisible crutch for support.
1) you are not taking MY religion
2) you are not expressing any truths; you are making baseless attacks with random assertions designed to slander Christianity as a whole; I won't play that game. Christianity has a 2,000 year heritage and I won't sit here and act as though it is on trial
3) it is the belief system of the BAKERY OWNERS that is the point of discussion, not my own.
4) you started the name calling by attacking, and I quote, "your religion"... "your god".
And, like the child you are, you agitated until the grown-up got tired of your gad-fly irritation.
5) I am not a Catholic, I believe I told you this. Not that you pay any attention to anything but your own hatred.
And someone who advocates homosexual behavior shouldn't bring up cannibalism. Nor, in this place, should someone who advocates forcing producers to produce for the benefit of others invoke "cannibalism".
You got what you wanted; you pissed me off. Pissing me off is not winning an argument, it merely demonstrates how you're a childish pest.
Now go bother somebody else.
Perhaps you are on the wrong page or forum? Might you do better on one of your religious forums?
Just how does a gay wedding impact anyone except the participants?
The baker isn't going to divorce his wife.
The baker's kids aren't going to marry the German Sheppard next door (if they do HE brought the kids up wrong).
What's the worst that can happen? Maybe a gay will look in his window and say the baker is using the wrong table cloth?
Sheesh... Why is it the baker's business how his cake is used once it goes out the door?
when starbucks Ceo asked that patrons not use there shops when wearing their firearms where was the moral outrage from the civil rights groups
do we push things to the point of majority rules? cuz in the 1800s I think you'd be pretty disillusioned with the majority rules. there must be an objective standard and it must not include force for grievances that are not happening via force. YOUR perceived right can only exist separate from force. Meaning: a right is natural. you own yourself. BUT if you tell me I must support your views or lifestyle- that is something different. that is at the point of a gun you are telling me I have to agree with your view or lifestyle. OUTRAGEOUS! Gays, under the law, can hold any job, associate with whomever, live the exact same life as anyone else- legally. Marriage is governmental contract(which I abhor btw) that gives rights to one group over another-which you advocate all day long for as long as its your group-why won't you support my group (for argumentative purposes-I'm completely fine with gay marriage)..
The owners of the lunch counters had a perfect right to refuse to do business with whomever they chose for whatever reason they chose.
The city, however, didn't have the authority to restrict admittance to public services, or regulate who may or may not start a lunch counter based upon race.
Equal protection under the law doesn't mean laws forcing equality; it means the existing laws be applied equally. It means that, in legal proceedings, in regulation, I am protected by the law regardless of any aspect of my person.
It doesn't mean passing laws to coerce equal treatment of their fellows on the part of free citizens.
Remember, render onto Cesar.
If the bakers believe as I do, that homosexuality is a mental illness and that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron... why should they do anything to promote either?
If the local chapter of the Nazi party is having a wingding, and wants me to bake a cake for it, is it against my self interest to refuse? Suppose I'm a Jew?
At some point there are considerations beyond the monetary. It was against Rearden's self-interest, in many ways, to refuse to sell his metal to the SSI.
It was against Roark's self-interest, in many ways, to agree to ghost-design the housing complex. His whole demand for personal sovereignty was against his financial interest. So I don't think financial interest can be the be-all and end-all of Objectivist morality.
One's taste contributes to one's happiness. One's desire to shape the world around one in a fashion one finds comfortable also contributes to one's happiness.
Consider the 20th Century Motor Company. As Jeff Allen pointed out, profit depends on what it is you're after.
I disagree that homosexuality is a mental illness.
I certainly respect the business owner's right to make or not make cakes for whomever they choose to. Financial interest is only one determination in any transaction.
That's like saying that Mercedes has a new microwave oven that seats six. It's just nonsense.
Now, please try to pay attention. Nazis are such by choice. Gays have no such choice. They are created by that there christian god you seem to believe in.
Further, if you want in any way to show us that it is a choice you can set an example. If you will have homosexual relations for a year by choice and then choose women again I'm sure you have a chance to convince someone that homosexuality is a "choice."
That would be a great community service in spreading the word that such is a "choice." Isn't community service a great christian thing to do?
I even approve of homosexual bakers who have ovens in America... provided they aren't actually baking homosexuals in them.
Diabetics are created by God, as well... I'm not obligated to make confections without sugar for them to eat.
Child molesters are created by God, as well. Am I obligated to do business with them? Or are they expected to control their appetites?
I won't eat liver, by choice, either. Doesn't mean people who love to eat liver are compelled to do so.
I don't care if it's a choice; sexual appetites are an irrelevancy. Being coerced to do business with someone I do not wish to do business with IS the issue.
"Community service", unlike the "charitable" things the left support... is voluntary.
I do not volunteer.
By your logic, I *must* go rape any number of beautiful female celebrities, because I cannot control my behavior, even if I know that behavior is wrong. Simply because I'm attracted to them I must force them to have sex with me. I have no choice.
Why don't you take awhile.
Why can't you understand that it's just good business to sell to everyone? That was clearly demonstrated when the American Family Association tried to boycott Ford for advertising with gay themes. Yet Ford made it through without any government aid. It's just good business to be inclusive. I'm sure John Galt would approve.
The guy is in business. Why do you advocate that he be allowed to discriminate? Oh, that's right... your religion. Just like Fred Phelps.
Why do you argue to take the dignity from another man? What do you gain from it? You can't trade it, you can't sell it... So, you steal it with no intention of gain. That doesn't sound like anything Ayn Rand would approve of.
Why is it that the couple doesn't get that?
I think the couple does. They felt no harm. They wanted to be activists on this and make a point-with a big stick.
Now the bakers, having paid lots of money to be in court, are considering, if they haven't already, closing their business. They have received numerous death threats and attempted vandalism-that's HARM.
Abortion clinics are an excellent example of how religious extremists have gone out of bounds. Show us the "death threats" on a business from gays.
Refusing to "service" a potential client is not the same as "taking" his dignity.
A contract must have at least 2 willing parties in order to be valid.
A "gay wedding" is an oxymoron, a farce, and a perversion of actual wedding.
Why do leftist scumbags always get to distort (aka, pervert) the meaning of traditional cultural practices, mores and beliefs? "Gay wedding" isn't even accurate; most weddings are gay affairs. "Homosexual wedding", while still oxymoronic, at least reflects what is contradictory in the phrase.
Either you are a believer in one of the religions that incorporates marriage into its belief system, or you are not. If you belong to one of them, then most likely, such as in the case of Catholicism, Islam, Judaism... marriage is the mating union of a man and a woman for life. If you follow those beliefs, "homosexual marriage" remains an oxymoron, and you're a hypocrite if you try to marry in one of those institutions (church, mosque, temple).
If you're not a practitioner of such a religion, what is the *point* of "homosexual marriage" other than to force the rest of the world to accept their mental illness as healthy and normal?
Religion does NOT have a hold on marriage. It is a civil contract and thus open to ALL Americans of consenting age.
Homosexuality is not a "sickness." Apparently in your religion then they were created by your god.
Besides, why is it of ANY interest what they do?
Tell us Hiraghm, how has your life changed in any way because of a same sex marriage.
Your question cannot be answered because there is no such thing as "same sex marriage". The term is an oxymoron.
Yes, atheists can get "married" in America. And when atheists get married, it is nothing more than a contract not to screw somebody else while screwing up the life of the person you marry.
But, *marriage* is a religious institution, the life-long *mating* of man and woman, affirmed before God.
Atheists cannot make such a commitment. They're short one God.
Chimpanzees were made by my God, too. That doesn't mean they should be married.
Really... According to what book? DSM maybe? Ain't there.
Besides, your god created them.
Look between your legs.
That bit of flesh there... its function is to make babies.
To promote that function, and to promote the survival of babies until *they* are of breeding age, the emotional attachment of "romance" exists. The addictive, endorphin rush accompanying sexual climax exists to compel males and females to engage in sexual intercourse.
if the attraction in a male is to another male, or an animal, or an inanimate object, that attraction must be misdirected, because, again, the function is to make babies. Likewise with females.
Doesn't matter whether babies actually result from every attempt. It doesn't change the function of the organs or the effects on the brain.
The function of hunger is to induce ingestion of food. If one is attracted to eat, primarily or exclusively, used running shoes, something is wrong with one.
Likewise, if one is attracted to mate with anything other than a member of the opposite sex of one's own species... something is wrong with one.
Oh, are you going to tell a wounded war vet that because he got shot "there" that he can't marry? Are you going to tell a post menopausal woman she can't marry? If someone is injured in a traffic accident and they can't reproduce are you going to take away their ability to marry?
Sheesh... Laws apply EQUALLY to all Americans and you can't exclude some from a CIVIL contract because they lack a certain ability.
Remember, religion has NOTHING to do with marriage. Atheists can marry in America.
Homosexuals can engage in civil contracts just as can heterosexuals.
There are board rooms around the world where civil contracts are entered into every day, with no ceremony and no sexual activity of any kind involved (well, in France they may kiss each other on each cheek, but... they're *French*).
On the contrary, marriage is a religious concept and religious institution.
Marriage is a CIVIL contract. Remember even atheists can be married. Heck, in some states even homosexual atheists can be married.
In fact there is a bit of an economical boom in those states where same sex couples can marry. I'm sure John Galt would approve of those businesses giving value for their services.
Oh, and BTW, Bishop Spong is Christian and he says same sex marriage is OK. How do I sort out all those Christians? There is you and Fred Phelps on the brutal side denying love and then there is Spong going along with loving relationships. Christanity sure is confusing when folks try to impose it upon others.
How has same sex marriage changed your life?
Be specific.
Hows that for how Gay Marriage has changed my life?
No... Your life isn't changed.
You are simply imagining what MIGHT happen.
What? I love my dog, I choose to marry her. Why are you denying me the freedom to marry the one I love?
Nobody is being denied the freedom to love or marry the one they choose. Nobody is being allowed to redefine marriage to mean something other than what it is. Well, actually, thanks to the courts (in places like IOWA, cough) people ARE being allowed to redefine marriage.
Next, I want to redefine "theft" to include possessing property that isn't mine, but I wish to be mine. Therefore, Walmart, Target, Home Depot and Bob Howard Auto Mall are all guilty of stealing from me.
Hey, I like this redefining stuff! Let's redefine citizenship to include (cause we wanna be inclusive) all animals and plants that are "born" on the American continents! We're going to need government funded assistance to help the plants get to the voting places, of course...
Then again, we have vegetables voting now...
Besides, the dog is unlikely to be old enough or have enough cognitive ability to support any concept of informed consent.
Thus Hiraghm you would likely IMO be guilty of rape (forgetting about the bestiality part).
BTW, now that we are clear from your statements we can deduce that such is common among anti-gay zealots. Check this out: http://www.theonion.com/video/breaking-a...
It appears you are grasping at straws to make a silly point that it's OK to be a bigot in America.
If you say why should one care what happens with the product of his work, I'll give examples of why someone should care. Simple as that.
This whole thread isn't about the "morality" of the shop keeper. Its about whether the government, or society has a right to force anyone to serve someone they choose not to do business with.
What if the KKK approached a watermelon farmer to buy a truckload of melons that they were going to use in parade the following week. The farmer, knowing of the stereotype that says black folks love watermelon, refused the sale because he was concerned about being seen as tacitly promoting a viewpoint that he found morally offensive.
Would that be ok with you, or should the KKK take it to the Supreme Court so they can force the farmer to sell watermelons in order to make a mockery of a group of people?
(I'm not saying I believe gay marriage is a mockery)
Last I heard this was still America and even though we may not like some of it free speech is still permitted. If they aren't using the watermelons to break any laws it would be nuts for the farmer to refuse the sail.
It would be the same if the watermelons were going to be used by "Gunny" Ermey and the farmer was anti-gun.
Yet, somehow, he was.
But, agreed, if the watermelons were going to be used by Emery, and the farmer was anti-gun, he would be justified in refusing to sell the watermelons.
Ain't America GREAT!
You just said "he's supposed to be catering to the public, that means ALL of the public."
I'm part of "the public" therefore he has to cater to me, and unless I buy his wedding cakes, he can't cater to me.
Maybe you should go back to your bishop for some more sloganeering.
Sure was. The christians of that era even had a special catechism for the slaves.
from: "http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/a-catechism-from-slavery/
"HE THAT WILL NOT WORK SHALL NOT EAT."
Imagine! Something from christanity that some will think Ayn Rand said! Of course this was for slaves.
The devil can quote scripture to his own end... ever hear that one?
There were "Christians of that era" who had never even been to the United States, let alone the antebellum South.
And I've had enough of your cowardly snide, and POINTLESS ATTACKS.
Exactly what has this to do with being able to hold your own values in America... other than demonstrating the attack on Christianity as part of the attack on values?
I understand now, that you're simply projecting when you declare me as lying. Your stock in trade is nothing but lies.
Once again, I've run out of troll food. I'm done letting you drag me away from the topic on this pointless argument.
I get it; you hate America, you hate Christians, you hate heterosexuals, you hate values, you hate God... I GET IT.
Now go play with the other children on the Huffington post or daily kaos.
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
In addition to taxes and other social contracts, including marriage, this government is asking folks not to be bigots and love (well, that's extreme... Let's go for respect) the rights of each other.
Who are you to deny the words of Jesus?
Like with everything else, there's a *context* to that statement, and the context is all important.
In this case, the government is not asking, it is compelling.
Marriage is God's, not Caesar's, btw (if you insist on taking it out of context).
Marriage is a civil contract. America does not have a state religion.
I find it interesting... It's not a debate about religion but a debate about business and what should be the rule book. Atlas Shrugged or some bible.
And no, discrimination is NOT natural, and to say that it is is evil.
discrimination
noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
---
You're confusing definition #2 with definition #3. The fact that definition #3 exists does NOT mean that definition #2 doesn't. Both meanings of the word are perfectly valid, but to engage in the action described in definition #2 is evil.
A person is perfectly free to discriminate all they like in the private sphere, where their actions have no impact on anyone but themselves. But in the public sphere, where an individual's actions DO impact other people, discrimination must be prohibited.
http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/publics...
Much like the saying "a good merchant does not argue religion with his clients", a good merchant does not argue sexuality with his client. If a baker chooses not to sell penis shaped cakes in spite of a market for them, it's his loss.
Getting the government involved is ridiculous. That the government would get involved is simply wrong.
Agreed... may they starve to death. Painfully, if quickly.
No vote, but I sense unjustified hatred in your words.
And I was also invoking sarcasm, since the issue is over cake, and it's unlikely anybody will go hungry because someone won't bake them a wedding cake...
On the other hand, boycotts/sanctions are among the best tools for individuals/states to enact change under a purely capitalist morality. Capitalism is a peculiar form of morality, but it IS a form of morality, even without consideration for the form of government that supports it.
Yes, I would convict/expel (internal) or bomb the shit out of (external) totalitarians waging subversive wars against us from the inside. McCarthy was probably the last unsung hero in our (unspoken, unacknowledged, right-of-center, nationally identified) war for the rule of law, and a liberal-leaning military is backasswards, but freedom-loving individuals that don't whine and feign injury over frivolity, be they male/female, black/white, gay/straight, religious/non-religious are "our people".
Whether anyone else gets this, I am speaking directly to YOU, sir.
You mean Madame Pompadour, I suspect.
Pompadour??
It has been historically and tragically mis-attributed to Marie Antoinette, who at the time of the revolution was attempting to help make reforms to improve the lot of the poor.
So, about those gays harming anything. Be specific.
(now I know how khalling feels....)
Christianity has made messes all over history... compared to what? You don't really want to compare Christianity's history over a two thousand year existence to atheism's history of a century or so, do you?
When you need an operation, paid for thanks to your Obamacare, be sure not to go to a hospital. Cause, you know, that's one of those messes caused by Christianity.
Try "GodHatesFags.com" for a modern exposure to how hateful and disruptive christians are against gays in America today.
Hiraghm has tried to paint me as an atheist and pagan among other things. Why don't you jump on him for his nasty "guilt by association" efforts? And he freely admits his bigotry against gays as part of his religion. That isn't "painting" him.
Get the full report at: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/in...
Try the Folsom Street Fair for a modern exposure to how hateful and disruptive homosexuals are against Christians in America today.
Looks to me like they raise money for charity like the Shriners do. Certainly different costumes but it generally looks like a bunch of levity to raise money. Check out the reality.
"Folsom Street Events Donates Largest Check to Local and National Charities
With $358,779 Check, Agency Clears $5.2 Million Mark for its 30-Year Giving History
The Board of Directors of Folsom Street Events announced charitable giving in the amount of $358,779 today. Rae Goldman, Board President, said, "2013 was a good year for Folsom Street Events and our charities. We are enormously grateful to our sponsors, beneficiaries, beverage partners, and the leather/fetish community for the ongoing support. Given the state of the economy, we feel that this check represents a major milestone in our 30 year giving history."
Hear that everyone? Nobody associate with Hiraghm! ;-)
Actually, it's a relief to know we have the right to NOT associate with you! :-P
Are you studying at the Bobo school of rhetoric, now?
This is tragic because this was a great opportunity to call for a reasonable boycott with real support from heterosexuals - and they squandered it.
Eventually, forcing me to do so will end up with a lot of bodies laying around.
Besides, how does a gay marriage really impact the baker?
He offers hate for something that has no impact on him. Really... How unAmerican.
We disapprove, so we "hate".
It impacts the baker by forcing him to violate his code of morality. If he's a devout Christian, what they are engaging in is an abomination... to him.
That they are pretending to marry wouldn't affect him... if they didn't insist he provide the cake as part of the event.
How does Elvis' swivel hips harm old fogies and their Glenn Miller records? Nobody knew at the time, but if we'd shot the sonofabitch the first time he got on stage, we wouldn't today have rappers spewing their garbage over the airwaves and inciting youngsters to emulate their barbaric mannerisms.
This is the essence of 'conservative'. To question any change for change's sake.
I don't know where 'gay marriage' will lead. I do know that in 1984 Geraldine Ferraro, leftist hag extraordinaire, laughed at the idea of unisex bathrooms and women in combat. Now we have both.
Today you can laugh at the idea of "gay marriage" being a threat to normal society; I'm no longer willing to experiment with what might come down the road in 30 years as a result of tolerating change for change's sake.
BTW, I don't care if a trigger fingernail has polish on it (boy or girl). The important thing is the bullet goes where it's supposed to go.
I find it absolutely hilarious that a big tough Army guy is gonna worry about another seeing his pee pee. What wimps those homophobes must be.
Since you don't know where gay marriage will lead why do you oppose it? Won't your god make it right? Who are you to decide for others when he has given them free will?
Big tough army guy... another seeing his pee pee? Where the HELL did that come from?
I don't know if God will make it right or not, but have you checked out His track record of HOW he makes things right?
Do a little research on a couple of towns called Sodom and Gomorrah. Or about Noah and his boat ride. God's way of "making things right" is a bit hard on the populace, don'tcha know.
And I know where accepting oxymorons as normal will lead; every perversion and mental illness being forced upon the society as "normal" and "healthy", with thousands of television hours spent trying to figure out why the hell the country is going to pot, tiptoeing around their blind spot that it is the belief system being forced on us in the name of tolerance that is destroying society.
It was terribly intolerant of the little boy to proclaim that the emperor was wearing no clothes.
Actually the kid was stating a FACT.
Now how's 'bout a fact from you.
What impact has same sex marriage had on your life? Be specific.
Same sex marriage doesn't exist.
so, Bobo, where's your defense of slithy toves, hmm? Did they really gyre and gimbal in the wabe, or was that all just made up by the media to cover up a greater conspiracy on the part of the fumious Bandersnatch?
Again, what difference has gay marriage made in your life?
"BTW, what makes it different than any other holy book? "
What other holy book? You mean the Old Testament? Well, as I understand it, the New Testament deals mostly with Christ and His time on Earth, whereas the Old Testament is oriented more toward the early history of mankind, particularly God's chosen people.
But, being a shirttail Christian, I can't describe them better than that.
Again, what difference has vorpal blade made in your life?
The official government position of this Country is to kill millions of people who never did anything to us.
We did not wage war ON Vietnam, we defended the republic of SOUTH Vietnam.
When South Vietnam fell, it was to FOUR ARMORED CORPS of North Vietnamese regulars. The millions who died were a result of communist aggression, not American defense of freedom. Many were sent to re-education camps for crimes such as possession of a French/Vietnamese dictionary, and who were joined by their wives and newborn children.
In your hypocritical hatred of all that is good, don't let the facts blind you.
Iraq fired on our warplanes, which were flying a no-fly zone to prevent Hussein from using more WMDs on his own populations. That alone was reason enough to resume the war. RESUME the war.
Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda, nuff said.
The "never did nothing to us" bit is getting old. Again, if you become lonely in your ignorance, the solution is not to attempt to spread ignorance, but to educate yourself.
As for Obama, he's not slavering to pull the trigger on Iran, or he would have done so. All he wanted in Syria is to make sure the right set of despots got in charge, as he did in Libya and Egypt.
We should have conquered Iraq and Afghanistan, set up American governor-generals to rule them, used them as staging areas to crush Iran between, then swung west to crush Syria. If at that point any of the rest of the middle east gave us lip, they should have gotten stomped, too.
Then the conquered territories should have remained under American rule for a generation or so until their populations could be indoctrinated in western philosophies and cultures... much as we did with Japan.
So, you really want to go there with me? You really want to pretend moral outrage at the U.S. to someone who thinks we were far, far too lenient? To someone who would have set the ROE to include massacring entire villages for a single IED?
You're barking at the wrong slavering, murderous monster, kiddo.
>> The "never did nothing to us" bit is getting old.
When you cannot refute the facts, you try to denigrate them. 2+2+4 is "old", but it's still true.
And when you're really out of your depth you try to make it an emotional discussion. Why else the references to "hate", "ignorance" and "moral outrage"?
Let's look at the record:
For starters, our excuse to get into Vietnam was the "Gulf of Tonkin [non] Incident". Which turned out to be a government lie. But as a pretext for war, it worked just fine.
The excuse for Iraq was "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - which also turned out to be a lie.
The excuse for Libya was that we were bombing Libya to save Libyans. Right?
Is that where the nerve gas (the excuse O-Bomb-Ya! wanted to use to attack Syria) actually came from?
Japan finally attacked US in desperation (after we embargoed their supply of steel, froze Japanese assets and cut off their supply of oil.)
Some people just can't see the logical fallacy of going after "WMD" in Iraq, "Saving the people" in Vietnam and Libya and the saber-rattling over Iran possibly getting a nuke some day, while North Korea continues to starve its own people while possessing nukes!
It's... all... a... big... LIE!
The US Government FUNDED bin Laden
Afghanistan was invaded in a quest for bin Laden and company. A quick end to the operation wasn't what the administration had in mind, else they would have sent SpecOps units instead of the whole freaking military. No, we needed a much longer operation. You know, like Iraq, the longest war in our Nation's history. Afghanistan was only tangentially about bin Laden.
Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex for specifically the reasons cited above. The government creates wars which creates the need for materiel. The war-profiteers fill the need for materiel getting rich in the process. They contribute to politicians who then vote for more wars. It has nothing to do with idealogy and everything to do with money and corruption.
This is government preventing abuse of a couple in love.
Really, how does it harm the baker to sell a cake to another? Is his god gonna hit him with a lightening bolt? His aim must be really really bad because I ain't been hit yet.
Snide condescension is a standard tactic of intolerant leftists when confronted with principled stands.
If you knew a fraction of what you claim to know about "my religion", you'd know that he'd be risking denial to paradise in his afterlife.
Please cite your source of evidence that the bakery owners are pagans? Because, as you know, it's Zeus / Jupiter who throws lightening bolts.
But, then, with your sloppy, childish thinking, who can expect you to get anything right? It's not as if anything matters to you beyond tweaking the noses of the grownups in the room.
There you go again.
So, prove to me that this baker was worried about his eternal whatever. Prove there is life after death.
He doesn't have to justify his preferences for doing business.
I was explaining to you what, according to the Christian belief system, would be the anticipated result of his supporting an abomination such as two males pretending to get married.
If you want proof of life after death... suicide. You'll be more convinced than by anything I could say.
In fact in a whole bunch of states same sex couples can now be legally married. It's got nothing to do with religion. It's a civic ceremony. If any preacher doesn't want to marry folks he doesn't have to but a civil servant (JP, Judge, elected official) must perform for all comers.
That's twice you've called me a liar with no proof to back up your accusation.
Once upon a time, in a whole bunch of States, white men could legally own black men. Didn't make it moral. And didn't make it binding in the other States (which helped lead to the Confederate War...)
Your comment about pairs of homosexuals engaging in a meaningless civil ceremony to celebrate a legal contract does not relate at all to anything I said in the message to which you've replied.
He is in business to make money and they are willing to give him a fair price agreed upon for his product.
Selling them a cake, or a baloney sandwich may not endorse anything... selling a WEDDING cake, is another matter.
WTF do you care? You're an atheist, anyway.
khalling, why is it I attract all the perverted stalkers in the gulch?
Reminder: I've told you several times I'm not an atheist.
I've been clear that I don't discuss what I am because someone may not like me and not choose a path that is correct for them because of that.
Or they may like me and join me on my journey when it isn't right for them.
Wiccan, perhaps? Scientologist?
Your excuse is clear. Don't attempt to presume to attack anyone else's beliefs when you are too cowardly to put yours on the line.
I don't want someone missing out on what is right for them because they don't like me and associate that with the religion. I don't want someone following me because they like me and might miss what's right for them.
How often do I need to repeat that?
On the other hand you consistently bring your religion up.
I'm neither ashamed nor embarrassed by my religious convictions, why shouldn't I bring them up?
Religious faith isn't a fashion statement.
As I recall, the inhabitants of the gulch were rather supportive of the government forcing THAT person to take down his sign, then remove it again from in front of his home, then remove the sign "in your heart, you know".
The consensus then was that the owner of the Red Barn Supper Club *should* be forced to do business with people he doesn't want to, and that his first amendment rights were subject to the feelings of our enemies.
Now there's a guy who seems to have some excessive and abusive christianity.
There's nothing wrong with the Westboro Baptist church people believing, or even proclaiming that "God hates fags".
What is wrong is their persecution of the families of fallen soldiers and treasonous acts.
Just like Bishop Spong claims to be christian.
One does not affiliate oneself as. One affiliates oneself *with*.
You can proclaim yourself a Catholic Bishop... that doesn't make it so. The Westboro Baptists can proclaim themselves Christians... that doesn't make it so. And even if they, in all other ways, *were* Christian, what they are doing is immoral and a sin according to Christianity, and treason according to the Constitution.
But, thanks. I'll take the Westboro Baptist Church, sure. Cause they haven't flown any planes into skyscrapers lately or... ever.
Bad as they are, they haven't begun stoning women for being raped.
Bad as they are, as much as they hate "fags", they haven't executed any yet.
Now, there's an even money chance that you're going to try turning this into an argument about how not alllll Moslems are the same as those advocating Jihad, to which I might reply that, unlike the Moslem world, American Christians roundly condemn the Westboro Baptist Church.
If I want to discuss the relative merits of religion, I'll do it with my Moslem, Hindu, atheist and Christian co-workers.
Now, once again...
STOP STALKING ME!
Check this out: "American Christian Evangelicals Celebrate Uganda's 'Kill the Gays' Bill
By Austin ClineDecember 6, 2012"
From: http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/12/06/am...
Yup, it's an atheist site but that doesn't stop them from telling the truth.
Actually, since this is a CUSTOM cake, the issue is not merely one of selling an item, but of making someone labor against their wishes. In short, it is forcing the baker into slavery.
Check out: http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=Ga...
And of the toppers, maybe half a dozen or so are of two identical objects. out of almost 30,000.
Which part of "off-the-shelf" are you incapable of comprehending?
And you are correct, many are bride and bride, some are black and white, others are white and black...
Ain't America great! One huge melting pot... The salad idea is one to think about too. So many different folks getting along!
Sure am glad America isn't a theocracy.
2) there is no such thing as "same sex marriage". Marriage requires the participation of a man and a woman.
3) I used the word "object" to include the ones that were, in fact, birds. I was attempting to be generous, something that is always a mistake when engaged in a poo flinging contest with a leftist.
So what are you doing to combat the Green theocracy the government is forcing on us, hm?
Oh, I forgot, you're all about hating on Christianity.
So what happen? Some Christian boy sneak a peek under your mom's Burqa when you were young(er)?
I repeat: what part of "off the shelf" are you incapable of comprehending?
You can either admit that you were wrong in your assertion, or you can deflect once again onto another topic having nothing to do with the two rump rangers trying to force a bakery to accept and endorse their perversion.
In addition, I don't know how you get a cake unless you mix the ingredients and bake it, which is labor, in this case FORCED labor, i.e. slavery.
But ONLY if he wasn't paid for his effort can you call it "slavery."
Cakes for normal people: $200
Cakes for queers: $2,000,000
So you're saying that if the plantation owners paid the slaves in the antebellum South, it wouldn't have been slavery?
Well, they did pay the slaves; they provided the slaves room and board, medical attention.. they financed every aspect of the slaves' lives.
So obviously, those slaves weren't slaves.
It's way different for a person in business taking remuneration than a slave.
Clue: Gays aren't buying and selling bakers. They are buying a cake, just like anyone else.
Once again, you fire random shots and never follow up, because you don't give half a squirt of sh*, you're just flinging poo to see where it lands.
Answer the question, Dr Potter...
So you're saying that if the plantation owners paid the slaves in the antebellum South, it wouldn't have been slavery?
I didn't ask if a person in business taking money is different than a slave. I asked whether you are saying that if the slaves would have been paid, would they have still been slaves?
Clue: slaves have no intrinsic value. Their value lies in their labor.
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.
Which you damn well know, you just don't give a shit because you're busy flinging poo, not arguing.
The federal government, however, has no authority to discriminate; it is mandated to enforce the law equally and impartially.
Hm. Shall we describe societies obsessed with "keeping order"?
Who passed a law saying the baker *couldn't* make a cake for the homosexuals if he wanted to?
He decided on his own for whom he would and would not make a cake, and under what circumstances.
If it's a purely private matter, why are the homosexuals in question so intent upon making their association public?
In point of fact, we have imbecile breeding programs in America. We call them things like, "welfare", "food stamps", "AFDC".
Actually, this was first addressed in "The Marching Morons".
(I remember when "AFDC" was just "ADC")
Not that the MM was necessarily the "first".
Been to Venus lately?
And yes, I'm aware of your citation of The Marching Morons. But do you really feel so compelled to demonstrate it here, so frequently?
straight up socialism
What is it about me that has you so obsessed to do business with me, hang out with me, even marry me?
Freaking stalker...
Can the KKK guys wear their robes and hoods?
Unnatural is civilization. Unnatural is going against the grain in this cursed world, doing what the natural world says is not good. Laws are unnatural. Saying you can't physically take from the weaker is unnatural. All these things that are critical to our society.
NATURAL is tribal societies in Africa. Natural is the majority of American Indians killing eachother when the Europeans arrived. Natural is what happens in the Middle East, where the most powerful murder those who disagree with them. And, this asinine ruling from this idiotic judge is the natural extension of "natural" where those in power force their views on those not in power, just like the Muslims murder the Jews and Christians (and the gays) in the Middle East. That is natural. Congratulations.
However, maph thinks certain things should be "rights" which should not. For instance, one group does not have the right to FORCE another group to perform. He has not addressed how that is not slavery.
Only individuals have rights.
Other than that, I'm essentially in agreement.
neanderthal much, bambi?
I make my assertion with all of nature to support me.
Imagine a man who was invulnerable. What curb would there be on his natural tendency to acquire… whatever he wanted?
2. in fact, there can be no such thing as "invulnerable" because A is A, and things have properties.
3. A man who is invulnerable would NEED nothing-hence invulnerable. we acquire things because we are vulnerable. we need food, shelter, air to breathe....we need art. concepts to help us gain knowledge and revitalize our sense of life. merry christmas, bambiB
Which is why it's the *smartest* guy in the group who will kill whomever he wishes for whatever reason, or no reason at all.
Forced association is evil. Horribly evil.