# Do you believe in personal freedom or not?



## watcher

I have been following the up roar about AZ "allowing" privately owned businesses to have the "right" to decide who they sell or not sell to and it has me thinking again.

Where does the government get the power to tell a private citizen how to run their business?

I think:

If you don't want to sell your house, car, groceries or what ever to anyone who is less than 6' 4" tall you should be free to.

If you don't want to sell to someone who has red hair that's your right.

If you don't want to sell to a Christian, fine. Its your property, not the governments.

Think about it. What's the difference in the government telling you who you must sell your goods to and it telling you who you must 'sell' your labor to?

Say you are a strong atheist and the government told you that you HAD to work for and in a very religious business. Would you say that was "fair"?

The government should be 100% unbiased and treat each citizen the same. But a private citizen has the right to be as bigoted as he wishes as long as he doesn't cause harm to another. And I'm sorry, you not being able to buy a whatsit from a specific store doesn't rise to the level of being harmed.


----------



## painterswife

People go through a long immigration process just so they can come to a country that has laws against discrimination.

Would you be fine if Muslims bought all the oil companies and decided that no one but Muslims can buy gas?


----------



## simi-steading

Yeah, the days of "we reserve the right to refuse service" is sadly long gone.. Before you know it, we'll be forced to sell to someone with no shoes or no shirt, since they are probably too poor to afford them, and that would be discrimination against the poor... 

Unkle is becoming WAY too over bearing in our day to day lives.. it is never what the founding fathers intended... Things need to be rolled back... But I'd rather see some heads roll...


----------



## karenp

Muslims buying all the oil companies would violate anti-trust laws first of all. Second this would apply to private businesses, not corporations.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

painterswife said:


> People go through a long immigration process just so they can come to a country that has laws against discrimination.
> 
> Would you be fine if Muslims bought all the oil companies and decided that no one but Muslims can buy gas?


What would prevent a Christian group from opening a gas company to sell to the infidels? Free market would solve the problem.


----------



## Glade Runner

I absolutely believe in personal freedom and agree with you 100 per cent. I think it's outrageous that we've reached such a state that the only legitimate target for discrimination is believing Christians.


----------



## where I want to

I believe that 10 people standing in a row will have as much personal freedom as they want right up to the point it hits the next person's personal freedom.


----------



## emdeengee

This stupid law would not just apply to Christians. Devout Muslims and Jews could refuse to do business with women since their religion prohibits women who are not members of your family from addressing them or being in their company. And what next? A Christian fireman refusing to put out a fire at the home of a gay person or a Jewish paramedic refusing to treat a woman victim? Thin end of the wedge.


----------



## paradox

I agree. If I walk into a bakery and they don't want to serve me because I am female, or red headed, or wearing a 2nd amendment tshirt then they can say so and I can take my business to another bakery. I am not "harmed" by needing to seek out another place to buy my cupcakes. This antidiscrimination stuff has been taken to the point of ridiculousness.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

The mission statement of the country used to be "*All men are created equal*." There may have been two days in 1971 when this was more or less true, but factionalism and bigotry keep popping out like roaches attempting to destroy that statement. I am egalitarian, have had my own business for years, have worked many theatres where tickets were sold to the general public. It hasn't hurt me.

I'll sell to gays. I'll sell to Jews. I'll sell to black, white, red, green and yellow. I'll even sell to bigoted small minded twerps with religious superiority complexes! 

I _have_ turned away obviously intoxicated teenagers, a single man who wanted to attend a crowded children's matinee, and people who didn't have enough cash. That is about it. 

If your personal morality is so weak that you can't do business with people outside of your favored group, you don't belong in business.


----------



## joshp

If I could like Harry Chickpea's post 100 times, I would. 

I see signs posted in businesses everyday that clearly state, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." No problem with it whatsoever, since it is* all* inclusive. 

Mrs. Josh


----------



## paradox

Harry I would tend to agree with you on selling movie tickets. I can't really think of a religious belief that would come into play in the selling of a movie ticket. In most straight sales of product you have no ability or cause to know any personal details of the person you are selling to, and therefore no religious conflict. Your only dilemma might be kids trying to get into R rated films in which case you have the ability to deny it (supported by a law that says you CAN discriminate based on age there).

The problem they are trying to address here is a series of law suits forcing businesses like wedding venues, bakeries, and photographers to participate in ceremonies that are against their beliefs. I feel like those cases are a bit different because it is more of a service where the owner must have involvement in a ceremony, than just a sale without knowing any personal details if that makes any sense. 

I hardly ever side with the passing of MORE laws - we are over run with laws as it is. And I am not sure the best way to address this. But currently you have a climate where someone can (and HAS) destroyed a business instantly by simply finding out what the owner believes, walking in and asking him to do something that goes against it, and then suing the crap out of him when he says no. I think it is an intentional decision designed to get media hype and possibly a few bucks in "damages" when it would have been far simpler to call the next such business in the phone book and move on. 

Here is an example - I have no problem with gay weddings because it isn't my place to tell anyone how to live their life. But if I am a photographer, I should not be forced to participate in one as it is against my personal beliefs. I also would not participate in any kind of a satanic ceremony, or one held by nudists where clothing was "optional", or any number of other things I can think of that I would not want to be a part of. 

Should I be forced to participate under threat of onerous fines, loss of my business, or jail time? Or does it make more sense to tell the offended party to simply select another business who doesn't mind serving them? Keeping in mind that the offended party is free to tell the whole world what a jerk I am and have all their friends and like minded acquaintances boycott me. Isn't that enough punishment given that they were not truly injured in any way other than having to place another phone call or two?


----------



## plowjockey

watcher said:


> The government should be 100% unbiased and treat each citizen the same. But a private citizen has the right to be as bigoted as he wishes a*s long as he doesn't cause harm to another*. And I'm sorry, you not being able to buy a whatsit from a specific store doesn't rise to the level of being harmed.


That term is pretty subjective.

What if the blacks want (and they can afford it) the last rental house in a Montana town, or the item that gays want, is only available in an other store -100 miles away. 

What is there is only one doctor in town and he doesn't like blacks, jews, gays mexicans vietnamese, or any other minority?

Christians are now the first to complain about "discrimination", but are happy to take away gays rights, to attempt get married.

The bottom line here is that we want all the rights _we_ can get, but want to take right away from others, when we feel like it.

It's the new America. 



> And I'm sorry, you not being able to buy a whatsit from a specific store doesn't rise to the level of being harmed.


So, you'd have no problem, driving a 200 mile round trip to get some nuts and bolts, if the local merchant didn't want to serve you?


----------



## sidepasser

I think a privately owned service industry should be able to serve whomever they please and they should not have to serve those that they do not wish to. Although I might have to take up photography if Johnny Depp had a nude wedding..lol..

There are businesses that cater to gay people, black people, jewish people, etc. I would not be offended if I were to go to hair salon for black women and ask them to cut my hair if they said no, we don't do white women's hair. I'd thank them for their honesty and find another salon.

Point is - small private businesses that cater to a select market should be ok if they state they are X and don't want to do a service involving Y. i.e. smokers..they get discriminated at every turn. yet they have money to spend, just like me.


----------



## gimpy

watcher said:


> Where does the government get the power to tell a private citizen how to run their business?
> 
> ..


Any business that requires a permit to be in business has to follow the rules of the government. That's part of having a permit. If you don't want to follow the rules then have an unlicensed business and see how far that gets you if someone tries to sue you for something.



simi-steading said:


> . Before you know it, we'll be forced to sell to someone with no shoes or no shirt, since they are probably too poor to afford them, and that would be discrimination against the poor...
> ...


No, that's a health code violation and you can tell them to leave the store because they are violating your right to have a clean business


----------



## gimpy

sidepasser said:


> i.e. smokers..they get discriminated at every turn.


No, smokers are violating others' right to clean air. People who are allergic to smoke can be killed with just a breath of your smoke. If I like the smell of pepper spray should I be allowed to spray it in your face? Your rights end when they infringe on another's. Smoke at home, or at your friends' homes, not in public, not in parking lots and not on others' property where you don't have permission.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

Paradox, that is a very good post. I also like that you are the one to bring it up because what you are bringing up is a paradox. 

There have been more than a few films where the theatres were picketed for showing them. "Agnes of G*d" was one, "Life of Brian" another, and I could recount a dozen more, given time. I personally find the various slice-n-dice horror movies to be spiritually problematic, and I disliked intensely having to check on the audiences and subject myself to what they enjoyed. The only time I ever told an owner I would walk is when there was a "Snuff" film going around that was being advertised as the real thing. In a case like that, I would simply quit. (99% of movie hype is hype and fluff, but the precedent set by that film was just too dark to be in _any_ public interest.)

In my younger years I did do professional photography and shot a handful of weddings. I didn't have to wash after a Catholic or Episcopalian wedding, and wearing a yarmulke was no big deal. I didn't get to eat the cookie or taste the wine.

There is a difference between providing services for a fee and participation. If the owner had refused to jump out of a cake nude, I doubt any jury or judge would rule against him. Is making a cake going to go against the morals of a cake-maker? Oi! Maybe if he was kosher and the recipe demanded lard, but I'm hard pressed otherwise to think of a valid complaint that doesn't incorporate bigotry in some way.

Business owners can and do set up certain standards and routines and refuse service outside of those parameters. Example - my programs require specific printers and operating systems. If someone tells me I have to port to a Mac, I can say "tough luck, no." If OTOH, the person wants to use my system to control ticketing at a bull fight or male chicken fight - where that is legal - I have no reason not to sell the system.

Put it this way. Once laws are enacted, we pick and choose which we won't obey at our own peril. In civil suits, damages have to be proven and victims made whole. I personally think the legal response in the cake incident was over the top, and should have been limited to the price of a cake, but there are other much more serious legal over-punishing decisions that do far more harm.

The answer is not MORE laws. The answer is likely closer to modifying existing laws and limiting damages.

If you took the entire thrust of this thread and transported back to 1958, the same arguments would be used against equal rights for blacks. That in itself is telling about tolerance and intolerance. Some folks confuse morals and bigotry.


----------



## joebill

The whole thing is a bunch of silliness.

If the local guy refused to sell me nuts and bolts, I daresay I'd be in the nut and bolt business the next week, serving people of my own ilk, whatever that is. 

I work for whoever I please and let the rest work it out for themselves. I have never refused to work for somebody based on race or other similar causes, but you can bet I would not be phtographing a gay wedding if I were a photographer, or if they wanted to force the issue, they had better like pictures of shoes.

i refused to do some dirt work for a gay lady, years ago, but NOT because she was gay. it was because she was a whack job, insulted everyone she met, including friends of mine, never claimed to be happy with anything she hired anyone to do, was prone to get into knife and club fights with her significant other on friday nights and have the cops flashing their lights in the neigborhood until 3 AM. As one of the worst personalities I have ever met in my life, perhaps I should have been forced to do work for her simply because she was also gay? Even though I couldn't care less about that? Because that is what the law is trying to bring about......another protected species, which just happens to be overwhelmingly liberal.

Nope, sorry, you can be kicked out of a bar, a library, a church, walmart, and you can dang sure be kicked out of my business if I don't want to serve you, and you wouldn't be the first, sixth, probably the twelfth, although I never kept score.

I wouldn't kick anybody out based on sexual preferrances, but I would over sexual behaviour, regardless of what the mix was, and if the "couple" happened to be gay, I guess they'd be calling the cops on me......Pure silliness....Joe


----------



## Sawmill Jim

gimpy said:


> Any business that requires a permit to be in business has to follow the rules of the government. That's part of having a permit. If you don't want to follow the rules then have an unlicensed business and see how far that gets you if someone tries to sue you for something.
> 
> 
> No, that's a health code violation and you can tell them to leave the store because they are violating your right to have a clean business


I have had a few business license and I never saw that part about it giving the right for the Gov. to tell me who to serve .Mine said I paid a fee to the State to run a gas station and they wanted their part . If someone tried to force me to do work on their auto ,they could need two wreckers after I did just to haul it off :flame:


----------



## Lilandra

:cowboy:


joebill said:


> The whole thing is a bunch of silliness.
> 
> If the local guy refused to sell me nuts and bolts, I daresay I'd be in the nut and bolt business the next week, serving people of my own ilk, whatever that is.
> 
> I work for whoever I please and let the rest work it out for themselves. I have never refused to work for somebody based on race or other similar causes, but you can bet I would not be phtographing a gay wedding if I were a photographer, or if they wanted to force the issue, they had better like pictures of shoes.
> 
> i refused to do some dirt work for a gay lady, years ago, but NOT because she was gay. it was because she was a whack job, insulted everyone she met, including friends of mine, never claimed to be happy with anything she hired anyone to do, was prone to get into knife and club fights with her significant other on friday nights and have the cops flashing their lights in the neigborhood until 3 AM. As one of the worst personalities I have ever met in my life, perhaps I should have been forced to do work for her simply because she was also gay? Even though I couldn't care less about that? Because that is what the law is trying to bring about......another protected species, which just happens to be overwhelmingly liberal.
> 
> Nope, sorry, you can be kicked out of a bar, a library, a church, walmart, and you can dang sure be kicked out of my business if I don't want to serve you, and you wouldn't be the first, sixth, probably the twelfth, although I never kept score.
> 
> I wouldn't kick anybody out based on sexual preferrances, but I would over sexual behaviour, regardless of what the mix was, and if the "couple" happened to be gay, I guess they'd be calling the cops on me......Pure silliness....Joe


I think the law came about because a gay couple sued a baker for not making a cake for them because their wedding was against his beliefs. It ended up in court costing much more time and money than if he made an ugly sauerkraut and horseradish cake for them. The businessman had no rights to operate his business in the way he saw fit.
Gay folks are less than 10% of the population - this law should be unnecessary but somehow businesses need a legal leg to stand on when they turn down a customer...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...er-ordered-to-make-cakes-for-same-sex-couples
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/
here's a good editorial on the subject - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lowed-to-refuse-wedding-cakes-to-gays/284061/


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> ....... But a private citizen has the right to be as bigoted as he wishes as long as he doesn't cause harm to another. And I'm sorry, you not being able to buy a whatsit from a specific store doesn't rise to the level of being harmed.


I think that all bigotry is harmful so it's not possible to be a bigot and not be harming someone. Not least of which, the bigot is harming their own self through their bigotry but because they're a bigot they may refuse to recognize the harm they're doing to themself. A bigot who refuses to sell a certain item to a harmless, law abiding citizen simply because of their personal feelings about the citizen is just begging to have themself put out of business. There are many ways to put a bigot out of business permanently.


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> I think that all bigotry is harmful so it's not possible to be a bigot and not be harming someone. Not least of which, the bigot is harming their own self through their bigotry but because they're a bigot they may refuse to recognize the harm they're doing to themself. A bigot who refuses to sell a certain item to a harmless, law abiding citizen simply because of their personal feelings about the citizen is just begging to have themself put out of business. There are many ways to put a bigot out of business permanently.


The only way I know to put anybody out of business permanently is kill them or give them life in prison. Which are you advocating?......Joe


----------



## chickenista

The entire thing is beyond ludicrous.
It's stupid.
It's totally ackbasswards.

This is 2013.
And we are going to do this all over again?

And I agree wholeheartedly with the above poster that pointed out the big 'what if'.
What if it is the only pharmacy, the only dentist etc.. for 100 miles?

What will become of the Christians that the atheist pharmacist won't serve?
Wherever will they go?

And I would do my level best to not frequent a business that discriminates against anyone.
I will order online or go without or pool up with others to share the trips to the next town..whatever I would have to do to never get that business owner a single dime of my money.


----------



## plowjockey

Lilandra said:


> :cowboy:
> 
> I think the law came about because a gay couple sued a baker for not making a cake for them because their wedding was against his beliefs. It ended up in court costing much more time and money than if he made an ugly sauerkraut and horseradish cake for them. The businessman had no rights to operate his business in the way he saw fit.
> Gay folks are less than 10% of the population - this law should be unnecessary but somehow businesses need a legal leg to stand on when they turn down a customer...
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...er-ordered-to-make-cakes-for-same-sex-couples
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/
> here's a good editorial on the subject - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lowed-to-refuse-wedding-cakes-to-gays/284061/


Blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population. Is it OK to discriminate against them?


----------



## Paumon

joebill said:


> The only way I know to put anybody out of business permanently is kill them or give them life in prison. Which are you advocating?......Joe


I would not advocate either of the above unless perhaps the bigot has been led by their bigotry to become a murderer. I'm sure you're capable of putting your imagination and ingenuity to work for you to think of other ways of putting bigots permanently out of business without taking their lives.


----------



## joseph97297

I think that people should be able to serve whom they want, and to suffer the repercussions of said choices, good or bad.....

Serve whom you want, what you want. As long as it does no physical harm to any one or any group I see no problem.

Your actions and choices always have a way of coming back to you....good or bad.


Is it a personal freedom issue? How does one say people can do what they want in their own store, yet some of those very people will want the gov't to ban this or ban that..... sorry, either have full acceptance or full refusal of gov't intervention.....


----------



## paradox

As I said before, I don't know the answer to this one, but I think our modern society can handle these issues much better than they could oh so many years ago when segregation was the status quo. I don't think more laws is what is needed to fix it - I think a little common sense is what is needed.

In this day and age if a store said they did not want to serve blacks, it would be all over social media and they would likely see enough of a drop in business to hurt them. If the gay couple had simply protested and picketed the bakery I would have no problem at all. I don't think lawsuits is the way to go in any of this. I just don't see that there was enough harm done to warrant such drastic measures. 

Also to those who say "what if" there is only one store and you have to travel to get service - people do that all the time for even smaller reasons than this. I live in a tiny town with one gas station. It used to be full of smokers and you couldn't walk in without having to shower afterward. There was no pay at the pump, so many of the townfolk made sure to get gas in another town, closest of which is 30 miles away. Apparently enough people were doing the same thing and it was losing money, so the owner sold out. New owners instituted no smoking - business is booming. So free market took care of the issue without anyone having to sue. I suspect this would be the case in many small towns. Also I think it is far less likely to find businesses who would refuse to serve someone these days than you would several decades ago. 

Another point to think about is that this case is not about discrimination simply because you don't like the looks of someone. It is about someone being asked to go against their religious beliefs. Some of you may feel that providing a product or service for a ceremony that is against your beliefs is not a big deal. But for most religious people it really is a big deal. If that product or service will be used in a way that violates our beliefs, I think we should not be forced to participate. 

People often refuse business to people though for a variety of reasons. It just doesn't blow up into a media circus unless it involves religion. For example I see craigslist ads all the time offering bunnies for sale and specifying not to bother to contact them if you plan to feed them to snakes or eat them yourself. Well that is refusing to sell a product to someone because you don't like what it will be used for. Never seen a big lawsuit over that, just people calling the next rabbit seller on the list and getting on with their life.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

Paradox, _again _I like your response. I must admit that I am highly amused that a cake might be used in a way that violates someones belief system or be an offense to the almighty, but you are thinking and not abreacting.

What you are contemplating though has its own problems. About a hundred years ago there were some real debates about dominance of majority rule and "free" market (which is NEVER completely true or free). Most philosophers of the time came to the conclusion that mob rule is a dead end.

The core of the issue is something that would take a major treatise to explore in any detail, but a lot of it comes down to a dispute between extreme liberal thought and arch-conservative thought and is totally based in position statements instead of rational thought.

Please explain to me what dastardly deed can be done with a bit of cake at a wedding? What sin against the almighty is a misplaced angel food cake? I can just see someone going up to the gates and explaining to Pete "Well, I TRIED to keep my cake from being used for profane purposes, but I failed." If there is a part of the afterlife reserved for "nice try but no banana," I suspect that it might be filled with such thinkers. If it was bad fried chicken, maybe.

We both agree that overreaction is asinine. There is a certain amount of discretion allowed to business owners, but the reality of business is that no business owner is in business for himself, that every business has to have customers willing to buy, a clientele willing to spend money. Being is business is not about YOU the business owner. It is about meeting the needs and desires of CUSTOMERS.


----------



## Lilandra

plowjockey said:


> Blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population. Is it OK to discriminate against them?


not what I was trying to say... guess I was trying to say that there are so few gay folks out there that this law is a stupid waste of time. people who run businesses should be able to do what they want - by refusing service because they don't approve of what a potential customer looks like is professional suicide. an angry customer has a tendency to tell the world whereas a happy customer just smiles and leaves... let the market decide what happens, not the government. the big thing tho is that people shouldn't threaten these businesses or their families - tolerance is a two way street and businesses should be protected from threats and violence...


----------



## plowjockey

Lilandra said:


> not what I was trying to say... guess I was trying to say that there are so few gay folks out there that this law is a stupid waste of time. people who run businesses should be able to do what they want - by refusing service because they don't approve of what a potential customer looks like is professional suicide. an angry customer has a tendency to tell the world whereas a happy customer just smiles and leaves... let the market decide what happens, not the government. the big thing tho is that people shouldn't threaten these businesses or their families - tolerance is a two way street and businesses should be protected from threats and violence...


Like I said.

Your town only has one or two black family's, which is not uncommon in many small towns.

OK not to serve them? It is the businesses choice, right?

Not sure if "let the market decide" would even pertain here, or even towards the gay either.

If the town if full of prejudiced people (and they will be), they will not care - at all, if Gays or black families are denied service.

History has proven this.


----------



## gjensen

The problem I see is the need for government to settle our disputes. 

Where is it that this person is a bigot? Does anyone know this person? Could he/she not simply believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? I do. Does that make me a bigot? I have not harmed anyone, and I do not think any less of a homosexual than I do anyone else. I am not going to walk them down the aisle either. 

No Harm was done by making the decision to not participate in a wedding. 

The comparisons to pharmacies etc. is not valid. The business owner did not refuse a life saving or sustaining item to anyone. The owner simply decided not to participate in the very act that he/she believed was wrong.
Does that mean he/she should not be a business owner? No it does not, but my recommendation to him/her is get out of the wedding cake business. 

Mostly, I am speaking hypothetically to make a point.

I do not want to see any person refused food, housing, medicine, their car worked on, anything. It goes against what I believe and what this country stands for. I also believe that it is wrong to require of any man or woman to participate in an act that they feel is wrong. 

Many will have trouble making that separation, but that is where I draw the line. There is a lot of things that I think is wrong, but I will refuse no assistance to anyone that I believe is wrong. Providing I do not have to become part of what is wrong. There is a difference. 

And it sickens me that an entire population needs a parental government. It is maddening.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Intolerance will not be tolerated!!

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Roadking

Herein lies the ups and downs of a niche market; I have no interest in your color, race, religion or proclivity.
I care that your money is real, the project is within my scope/desire to do, and your acceptance of my terms.
Granted, I'm looking to getting these VWs out of here to make room for the Harleys' and Chevelles on the waiting list.
Take your "trade" or "biz" and run it as you see fit. The market will decide how long you survive.

Matt

BTW, I've done jobs on cars that are almost embarrassing personally, but the owners have been very happy with the service I provided. I treat business/hobbies the same as daily life...as long as it's not inflicted on me, I'm fine with it. You bring in an attitude...that's more than enough for me to tell you the wait is 2 years until drop off.


----------



## poppy

emdeengee said:


> This stupid law would not just apply to Christians. Devout Muslims and Jews could refuse to do business with women since their religion prohibits women who are not members of your family from addressing them or being in their company. And what next? A Christian fireman refusing to put out a fire at the home of a gay person or a Jewish paramedic refusing to treat a woman victim? Thin end of the wedge.


Nonsense. Firemen and paramedics are government employees and government can set the rules for their employees but government has no business interfering in private business. If a Muslim restaurant owner does not want to serve me, that is his right. I would simply go elsewhere. It's no different than places of business posting signs that those carrying concealed weapons are not welcome.


----------



## gweny

I think the very existence of a government infringes on personal rights. I think we need one to maintain order and defend ourselves. A balance must be found and carefully maintained. That is why the founding fathers created the 3 branches of our government. (though I don't think it's working out anymore). 
I support the French ideal of laissez faire, the government and laws should be as minimal as possible. They should strive with every decision and every law to minimize their impact. More issues need to be left up to local authorities and individuals.


----------



## susieneddy

this whole thread useless. You say this or that but only if it fits your needs and wants. The hell with anyone that thinks differently than you.


----------



## MJsLady

My personal opinion is the government should not have the right to tell us who we choose to serve. Businesses should be allowed to make that decision for itself and succeed or fail accordingly. Nor should they be able to take property or tell us how to use it.

There should be no special protections based on anything other than handicaps that can not be avoided.


----------



## susieneddy

when talking government are you talking federal or state? The states comes up with some of the stupidest laws I have heard


----------



## Buffy in Dallas

Remember these?

View attachment 23818


----------



## poppy

susieneddy said:


> when talking government are you talking federal or state? The states comes up with some of the stupidest laws I have heard


They sure do but I am not captive to a state. If it gets too crazy, I can move to a state I like better and take my business with me if I have one. Much more complicated to leave the US because of federal laws.


----------



## poppy

Buffy in Dallas said:


> Remember these?
> 
> View attachment 23818


Yes, and there are still places in black neighborhoods where white's aren't welcome.


----------



## susieneddy

poppy said:


> Yes, and there are still places in white neighborhoods where black's aren't welcome.


fixed it for you


----------



## susieneddy

poppy said:


> Much more complicated to leave the US because of federal laws.


not really, a lot of Americans are moving overseas because of the stupid crap both parties are doing


----------



## joseph97297

Wait, so handicap issues should be addressed?

Sorry, either a business has full control or no control.

You can't say that you want to 'protect' the right of the handicapped to be served, but all others are fair game.

Unless I am mis-understanding the statement. This is a difficult position for some, because of the urge to want no gov't intrusion. They don't want the gov't to 'recognize' gay marriage, but they want to be able to not serve a 'gay wedding cake'.

They want the gov't to protect the lives of 'unborn' yet when the gov't steps in to 'protect' the life of the 13 (I think) year old girl in the issue of parental custody they get their knickers in a knot.....

Is there a happy medium that will exist? In this case, are gay people, different religion folks, nose pierced, hippy-with-dreads able to be not served.....but if you only have one leg....well, we need to protect your rights?

To me, much easier to say it is all or nothing. Either you serve everybody regardless or you have the option.

I don't seem to recall this much opposition to the Handicap Act or requiring people to put in ramps and such....was there?


----------



## beowoulf90

I'm just thankful no neo nazi's or klansmen have asked me to do any drawings for them. I would have to refuse. But I guess at least according to some here I should be FORCED to cater to their wishes..

Next thing you are going to tell me that a Church will be FORCED to marry anyone that asks them to do it, regardless of religion...

I guess we can FORCE Jewish/Muslim owned grocery stores to sell ham and cut it to our preferences.. 

Be very careful what you wish for, you may just get it...

It seems that the Government now has the "authority" to override your Freedom of Religion and now also controls your freedom of whom you associate with.

Imagine that! The people have given away their Rights in the name of fairness..

Imagine a Jewish tattoo artist having to tattoo a swastika on a neo nazi youth. Remember they don't have the Right to refuse service, well at least according to some..

And I wonder where Freedom went.. All I have to do is read these threads and I can find my answer..

IT was given up without a fight, in the name of "fairness" "for the children" "security"
Now imagine my disgust. 

Oh by the way, I'm not against gays. But just as I don't have the Right to tell them not to be gay, they don't have the Right to tell me or anyone that I have to cater to their whims/needs..


----------



## unregistered353870

susieneddy said:


> not really, a lot of Americans are moving overseas because of the stupid crap both parties are doing


Physically moving is the easy part. If I move from my state to another state (which is MUCH easier than leaving the country) I am no longer subject to the laws of the state I left. If I move from the U.S. to another country, I am still subject to some U.S. laws. It isn't as easy as just moving to get out from under all the stupid laws.


----------



## mmoetc

This only becomes an issue of personal freedom if you believe, as the Supreme Court does, that businesses are people and have the rights of a person. My personal belief is that a business is a human construct not a human and therefor not entitled to the rights and privileges of a human. If your gay neighbors knock on the door of your house and ask you to bake their wedding cake you are perfectly ok by me to refuse. If that same couple knocks on the door of your bakery business you would be required by me to fulfill that order. Unless your business attends church or is a member of some religion it can have no religious beliefs.


----------



## painterswife

I personally would have no problem for a business to refuse to serve someone because of a religious reason. I however would expect and require that they follow that rule with regards to every business decision they make with no exceptions.

For example, they can post the reasons they will not provide a service or product to a customer, then they would have to ask every single customer what the item or service is being used for. I would also expect them to not buy any ingredient or part from anyone that was not also living according to their religious beliefs.

In other words you live, act and conduct yourself according to your religious beliefs across the board in all aspects of your business but you do not get to pick and choose who you will discriminate against depending on how easy or difficult it will be to follow through.


----------



## gimpy

Sawmill Jim said:


> I have had a few business license and I never saw that part about it giving the right for the Gov. to tell me who to serve .Mine said I paid a fee to the State to run a gas station and they wanted their part . If someone tried to force me to do work on their auto ,they could need two wreckers after I did just to haul it off :flame:


Then you didn't read all the regulations because part of all licences is that you agree to abide by the laws of the jurisdiction from which your got the licence


----------



## Glade Runner

painterswife said:


> I personally would have no problem for a business to refuse to serve someone because of a religious reason. I however would expect and require that they follow that rule with regards to every business decision they make with no exceptions.
> 
> For example, they can post the reasons they will not provide a service or product to a customer, then they would have to ask every single customer what the item or service is being used for. I would also expect them to not buy any ingredient or part from anyone that was not also living according to their religious beliefs.
> 
> In other words you live, act and conduct yourself according to your religious beliefs across the board in all aspects of your business but you do not get to pick and choose who you will discriminate against depending on how easy or difficult it will be to follow through.


Yep, you can always count on the lefties to impose their laws, standards and rules on someone else's conscience.


----------



## painterswife

Glade Runner said:


> Yep, you can always count on the lefties to impose their laws, standards and rules on someone else's conscience.


You say the nicest things.


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> I would not advocate either of the above unless perhaps the bigot has been led by their bigotry to become a murderer. I'm sure you're capable of putting your imagination and ingenuity to work for you to think of other ways of putting bigots permanently out of business without taking their lives.


Nope, fill me in.....ya gonna burn them out? Break both legs? blind them? c'mon, don't be shy! they are only bigots, after all, so they don't count.....Joe


----------



## mmoetc

Glade Runner said:


> Yep, you can always count on the lefties to impose their laws, standards and rules on someone else's conscience.


It is interesting that expecting consistency between thought and deed is seen by some as a negative thing.


----------



## joebill

gimpy said:


> Then you didn't read all the regulations because part of all licences is that you agree to abide by the laws of the jurisdiction from which your got the licence


No business license I ever saw gave me any admonitions other than to collect and submit to the state and city and county certain sales taxes......and I have seen a BUNCH of them....Joe


----------



## joebill

mmoetc said:


> It is interesting that expecting consistency between thought and deed is seen by some as a negative thing.


Fine, now apply that to abortion....joe


----------



## paradox

Another good point to add to the discussion that was made on a news program last night. In the case of the bakery, they are not refusing to serve gays in other capacities. They would happily do birthday cakes, graduation cakes, sell them pastries or cupcakes. The only objection is baking a cake for a wedding which goes against their belief system. So the old "whites only" signs are really not comparing apples to apples here.

Someone asked me back on the last page to please tell them how a cake could possibly infringe on my religious beliefs. I understand that people who are not religious won't get this. There is much of religious beliefs that don't make sense to people looking in from the outside. I don't understand the pork issue myself, but I respect and will fight for their right to practice their beliefs (besides, that's just more bacon for me :sing. I don't know of a good way to explain it to someone who does not hold the same beliefs as it will seem folly to you no matter what I say. But to participate (and yes creating something such as a cake or flower arrangements is participating) in a ceremony that is a mockery of God is simply not cool. I don't oppose their right to have the ceremony or live whatever lifestyle they wish. I only oppose them forcing me to participate. It is that simple.

I think when you are faced with a situation where somebody's rights are going to be infringed no matter which way you go, you have to decide the matter in favor of who would suffer the worst infringement. In this case, it seems to me that having to call another bakery isn't near as damaging as a business having to close or someone facing jail time.

Frankly I do not understand why government ever got involved with any type of marriage in the first place. In my mind (as a Christian) it is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Why we are forced to add the government into it is sheer nonsense to me. They horned their way into it by offering tax deductions and then piled on things like estates automatically going to the spouse. Seems to me they can keep their deductions and we can simply fill out a will to tell uncle Sam who should get our stuff when we die and who should be able to make decisions on our behalf if we are unable. I really don't think anyone (gay, straight, or "other") needs the governments permission to enter any type of union. It is an agreement between willing parties and really none of the governments business.


----------



## mmoetc

joebill said:


> Fine, now apply that to abortion....joe


I do.


----------



## painterswife

paradox said:


> Another good point to add to the discussion that was made on a news program last night. In the case of the bakery, they are not refusing to serve gays in other capacities. They would happily do birthday cakes, graduation cakes, sell them pastries or cupcakes. The only objection is baking a cake for a wedding which goes against their belief system. So the old "whites only" signs are really not comparing apples to apples here.
> 
> Someone asked me back on the last page to please tell them how a cake could possibly infringe on my religious beliefs. I understand that people who are not religious won't get this. There is much of religious beliefs that don't make sense to people looking in from the outside. I don't understand the pork issue myself, but I respect and will fight for their right to practice their beliefs (besides, that's just more bacon for me :sing. I don't know of a good way to explain it to someone who does not hold the same beliefs as it will seem folly to you no matter what I say. But to participate (and yes creating something such as a cake or flower arrangements is participating) in a ceremony that is a mockery of God is simply not cool. I don't oppose their right to have the ceremony or live whatever lifestyle they wish. I only oppose them forcing me to participate. It is that simple.
> 
> I think when you are faced with a situation where somebody's rights are going to be infringed no matter which way you go, you have to decide the matter in favor of who would suffer the worst infringement. In this case, it seems to me that having to call another bakery isn't near as damaging as a business having to close or someone facing jail time.
> 
> Frankly I do not understand why government ever got involved with any type of marriage in the first place. In my mind (as a Christian) it is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Why we are forced to add the government into it is sheer nonsense to me. They horned their way into it by offering tax deductions and then piled on things like estates automatically going to the spouse. Seems to me they can keep their deductions and we can simply fill out a will to tell uncle Sam who should get our stuff when we die and who should be able to make decisions on our behalf if we are unable. I really don't think anyone (gay, straight, or "other") needs the governments permission to enter any type of union. It is an agreement between willing parties and really none of the governments business.


Marriage is a legal contract. Religion addopted it not the other way around.


----------



## mmoetc

paradox said:


> Another good point to add to the discussion that was made on a news program last night. In the case of the bakery, they are not refusing to serve gays in other capacities. They would happily do birthday cakes, graduation cakes, sell them pastries or cupcakes. The only objection is baking a cake for a wedding which goes against their belief system. So the old "whites only" signs are really not comparing apples to apples here.
> 
> Someone asked me back on the last page to please tell them how a cake could possibly infringe on my religious beliefs. I understand that people who are not religious won't get this. There is much of religious beliefs that don't make sense to people looking in from the outside. I don't understand the pork issue myself, but I respect and will fight for their right to practice their beliefs (besides, that's just more bacon for me :sing. I don't know of a good way to explain it to someone who does not hold the same beliefs as it will seem folly to you no matter what I say. But to participate (and yes creating something such as a cake or flower arrangements is participating) in a ceremony that is a mockery of God is simply not cool. I don't oppose their right to have the ceremony or live whatever lifestyle they wish. I only oppose them forcing me to participate. It is that simple.
> 
> I think when you are faced with a situation where somebody's rights are going to be infringed no matter which way you go, you have to decide the matter in favor of who would suffer the worst infringement. In this case, it seems to me that having to call another bakery isn't near as damaging as a business having to close or someone facing jail time.
> 
> Frankly I do not understand why government ever got involved with any type of marriage in the first place. In my mind (as a Christian) it is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Why we are forced to add the government into it is sheer nonsense to me. They horned their way into it by offering tax deductions and then piled on things like estates automatically going to the spouse. Seems to me they can keep their deductions and we can simply fill out a will to tell uncle Sam who should get our stuff when we die and who should be able to make decisions on our behalf if we are unable. I really don't think anyone (gay, straight, or "other") needs the governments permission to enter any type of union. It is an agreement between willing parties and really none of the governments business.


To cut the point a little finer, unless the cake is to be served at the actual ceremony I'm not sure how they are participating. They are providing a cake to a party in celebration of the wedding. Not really much different than providing cupcakes to little Billy's birthday party when his two Moms throw it.


----------



## joebill

painterswife said:


> Marriage is a legal contract. Religion addopted it not the other way around.


Well, it's been a religious institution since about 1500AD, which predates the US constitution considerably.

http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/

It seems that religion has done considerably more for marriage and especially for women than the state ever did, and you can view what marriage, state style, was like by reading the above link's material.....Joe


----------



## MJsLady

Here is a simple solution that doesn't involve courts.

Choose another bakery. 

That would be the adult thing to do to begin with. If I don't want to play by the rules in YOUR house then I shouldn't yell at you, I should take myself home or to a different house. Same applies to businesses. You don't like the rules, take your business elsewhere. 

However then it wouldn't make the news and be a big brouhaha so they could yell and scream about their rights and force feed it to those who disagree.


----------



## painterswife

joebill said:


> Well, it's been a religious institution since about 1500AD, which predates the US constitution considerably.
> 
> http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/
> 
> It seems that religion has done considerably more for marriage and especially for women than the state ever did, and you can view what marriage, state style, was like by reading the above link's material.....Joe


"The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion."

Directly from your link.


----------



## joebill

mmoetc said:


> I do.


Great! so you entirely support the pro life agenda, or at least those who pursue it......Joe


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> Here is a simple solution that doesn't involve courts.
> 
> Choose another bakery.
> 
> That would be the adult thing to do to begin with. If I don't want to play by the rules in YOUR house then I shouldn't yell at you, I should take myself home or to a different house. Same applies to businesses. You don't like the rules, take your business elsewhere.
> 
> However then it wouldn't make the news and be a big brouhaha so they could yell and scream about their rights and force feed it to those who disagree.


I guess the adult thing to do if you were black and wanted to eat was to choose a different bus or water fountain. I guess women should have started their own government so they can vote.

This is the US and you can fight for what you believe is right. That is the adult thing to do.


----------



## mmoetc

joebill said:


> Great! so you entirely support the pro life agenda, or at least those who pursue it......Joe


Nope.


----------



## paradox

mmoetc said:


> To cut the point a little finer, unless the cake is to be served at the actual ceremony I'm not sure how they are participating. They are providing a cake to a party in celebration of the wedding. Not really much different than providing cupcakes to little Billy's birthday party when his two Moms throw it.


I still can't go there with you. To me the reception is a part of the ceremony and wholly different thing than a kids birthday party or any other type of celebration. I couldn't provide goods for a Wiccan or Satanic ceremony either though I would sell them a child's birthday cake. Again it is the involvement in a ceremony that is against the belief system which is the problem. The intention is NOT to shut out the people themselves, only to not participate in their ceremony.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Marriage is a legal contract. Religion addopted it not the other way around.


 
Makes a person wonder if Adam and Eve had to sign a contract


----------



## joebill

OK, let's examine a real event in my life that happenened maybe a couple of decades ago.

The Southwest is full of tourist shops selling Indian style jewelry, and as a metal worker, I decided to make some and sell it. Perhaps 10% of what is on the shelves is actually made by American Indians, and I have a bit of that blood in me, but I have never claimed to be anything buy an anglo, because I simply don't care.

I wandered around and made a few sales, but walked into one place and got told...."sorry, you do nice work, but your eyes are the wrong color" That would be blue.

I smiled, packed up and left. Was that person a bigot? In today's world, should I have sued him? He discriminated against me because of my race, clearly and unashamedly.

He did me no real damage, but he might have hurt my feelings, and he obviously had a lot of money, so should I have gone after him?

OR, should he have the option, in his own store, to decide not to sell stuff made by anybody with blue eyes?......Just checking........Joe


----------



## paradox

dixiegal62 said:


> Makes a person wonder if Adam and Eve had to sign a contract


Absolutely. And then it had to be notarized and witnessed by...wait a second...

Thanks for the giggle, I needed that.:thumb:


----------



## joebill

painterswife said:


> "The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion."
> 
> Directly from your link.


Yeah, and you made real sure to cut it off there, instead of allowing the truth to prevail, which is that marriage was a religious institution long before this was a country, and no modern woman would be involved in a marriage that was styled as they were before religion came into the picture.

Long before our constitution was signed, the state was superfolous in marriage, but it felt it had to worm it's way in.....joe


----------



## painterswife

joebill said:


> Yeah, and you made real sure to cut it off there, instead of allowing the truth to prevail, which is that marriage was a religious institution long before this was a country, and no modern woman would be involved in a marriage that was styled as they were before religion came into the picture.
> 
> Long before our constitution was signed, the state was superfolous in marriage, but it felt it had to worm it's way in.....joe


Still a legal construct no matter what religion or the State has to do with it now. This is a country composed of all religions and many of those that don't have or believe in religion. Religion only is part of marriage if you wish it so.

We are dealing with what is now not what part of history you wish to pick and choose to back up your position. If you want to talk about the institution of marriage than you should talk about the whole history of it and that means it was first and foremost a legal contract that had nothing to do with the church until men decided it was a good way to control and own their women.


----------



## MJsLady

You know, blacks didn't starve due to segregation. They had buses and so forth too. 
Neither did females. 
I don't base my ideas on color or gender. 
Neither does God. 
However God also does NOT respect persons. For any reason. He doesn't care what we think is right.

What he cares about is his followers doing what HE says is right. 
He says if some one blatantly ignores his will, what? Have NOTHING to do with them. 
So as his follower I can not knowingly serve gays, adulterers and so on. 

The difference is an adulterer can walk in and I not know it because they don't announce it and make a fuss over it. The same with other sins. No one makes a big deal out of it. However gays and their supporters do. THAT is not the adult thing to do. The adult thing to do is go about your business and mind your own beans. 

There is no prohibition in God's word against being black or female. There is against being a drunk, adulterer, murderer, thief or homosexual. (yes btw I know that word does not appear in the ancient tests, however the description of the lifestyle does and it is very accurate and listed more than one time) It is listed among a whole slew of things that no one is supposed to be. Yet folks don't demand they have the right to be (fill in the blank). The only ones who single out "gays" are gays and their supporters. 

If I choose to set up a business that caters only to wasps, I should have that right. If I want to only server lutherans and be open only on Tuesdays, I should have that right. So should everyone else. 

I suppose though I am what folks call an equal opportunity offender because I don't care who you are if what you are doing is wrong, its wrong. 

The thing is though God's word only matters to God's people. In a perfect society we would be allowed to actually reserve the right to refuse service. How many businesses have those signs? We reserve the right to refuse service... yet the gov steps in and says umm no actually you don't have the right to do that. The world is not perfect and everyday it is turned more and more upside down. More and more the media is convincing folks that wrong things are right and right is a bad word.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> This only becomes an issue of personal freedom if you believe, as the Supreme Court does, that businesses are people and have the rights of a person. My personal belief is that a business is a human construct not a human and therefor not entitled to the rights and privileges of a human. If your gay neighbors knock on the door of your house and ask you to bake their wedding cake you are perfectly ok by me to refuse. If that same couple knocks on the door of your bakery business you would be required by me to fulfill that order. *Unless your business attends church or is a member of some religion it can have no religious beliefs*.


By whose definition? That idea that "a business can have no religious beliefs" is an arbitrary conclusion arrived at in the desperate attempt to outmaneuver the opponent thru use of "moral equivalency", which has no place in law, let alone in a decent society.


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> By whose definition? That idea that "a business can have no religious beliefs" is an arbitrary conclusion arrived at in the desperate attempt to outmaneuver the opponent thru use of "moral equivalency", which has no place in law, let alone in a decent society.


By my definition.


----------



## unregistered353870

> This only becomes an issue of personal freedom if you believe, as the Supreme Court does, that businesses are people and have the rights of a person.


Not true. You're thinking of corporations. Many corporations are businesses, and many businesses are corporations, but not all businesses are corporations.


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> Y.
> . In a perfect society we would be allowed to actually reserve the right to refuse service.


Not my perfect society.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> By my definition.


Which holds no water in a court of law. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Since at least _Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward_ â 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In _Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad_ - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, *"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does*."

*Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, by any government entity denying the business its right to do business with whom it chooses, you are denying the equal protection of the laws to that *person*.


----------



## homstdr74

jtbrandt said:


> Not true. You're thinking of corporations. Many corporations are businesses, and many businesses are corporations, but not all businesses are corporations.


You just gave the answer to the dilemma---incorporate the business if it's not already a corporation.


----------



## Glade Runner

mmoetc said:


> It is interesting that expecting consistency between thought and deed is seen by some as a negative thing.


Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. 

This really has nothing to do with consistency. This is the usual leftist claptrap whichs says because you do one thing then you must do another. It's an attempt to define all the rules of conduct because that's the methodology leftists use to impose their will on others. It's amusing to anyone capable of even a little logic.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

homstdr74 said:


> Which holds no water in a court of law.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
> 
> Since at least _Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward_ â 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In _Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad_ - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, *"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does*."
> 
> *Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> So, by any government entity denying the business its right to do business with whom it chooses, you are denying the equal protection of the laws to that *person*.


Sometimes Supreme Court Justices can miss the obvious. Corporations do not have a limited lifespan, so they they become not EQUAL to humans, but SUPERhuman. It is a depraved concept.


----------



## greg273

MJsLady said:


> So as his follower I can not knowingly serve gays, adulterers and so on.


 Don't blame, or hide behind God trying to justify bigotry. I'm pretty sure, in a book somewhere, in red text, is the words, something to the effect of 'As you do unto the least of them , you do unto me'.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

paradox said:


> I still can't go there with you. To me the reception is a part of the ceremony and wholly different thing than a kids birthday party or any other type of celebration. I couldn't provide goods for a Wiccan or Satanic ceremony either though I would sell them a child's birthday cake. Again it is the involvement in a ceremony that is against the belief system which is the problem. The intention is NOT to shut out the people themselves, only to not participate in their ceremony.


Paradox, I liked your post because it reminded me of a skit that exemplifies just how silly the whole thing is. Note the various reactions and presuppositions:

[Youtube]5KCzR3gKTHA[/Youtube]


----------



## painterswife

deleted


----------



## paradox

In the world, but not of it. Christ himself, as our example, hung out with harlots and thieves. I don't agree that we are to avoid any particular group. We are to respect and to love all people. But we are not to allow our association with someone to cross the line into participation in something not of God. Many folks struggle with walking that line, and many non Christians seem to not understand the concept at all. They assume we must hate anyone who doesn't fit the mold, but the opposite is actually true. And reality is that Christians themselves never actually fit the mold either. We are all sinners, only one perfect man ever walked this earth.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Harry Chickpea said:


> To a point I agree buy when that customer crosses my personal line set by me I fire that customer and some can get there fast :thumb:
> 
> Had someone once trying to get me to advertise my business and I turned them down as I had all the business I wanted . Some just don't know when enough is enough :sing:


----------



## Harry Chickpea

I've fired a few customers myself. I understand where you are coming from.


----------



## 7thswan

Lets just Tax anyone that wants to have the Freedom to have their own thoughts. Just like Obama's Commiecare. It's all just for our own Common Good.


----------



## Evons hubby

MJsLady said:


> What he cares about is his followers doing what HE says is right.
> He says if some one blatantly ignores his will, what? Have NOTHING to do with them.
> So as his follower I can not knowingly serve gays, adulterers and so on.


Interesting... since we all know that we are ALL sinners.... I would think your customer base is going to be pretty small.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> People go through a long immigration process just so they can come to a country that has laws against discrimination.
> 
> Would you be fine if Muslims bought all the oil companies and decided that no one but Muslims can buy gas?


You are talking about a monopoly which I have very little problem with government involvement to prevent.


----------



## watcher

emdeengee said:


> This stupid law would not just apply to Christians. Devout Muslims and Jews could refuse to do business with women since their religion prohibits women who are not members of your family from addressing them or being in their company. And what next? A Christian fireman refusing to put out a fire at the home of a gay person or a Jewish paramedic refusing to treat a woman victim? Thin end of the wedge.


Nope, you are putting government service in to the mix. I have no problem with a Muslim doctor refusing non-emergency care to a Christian.


----------



## watcher

Harry Chickpea said:


> The mission statement of the country used to be "*All men are created equal*." There may have been two days in 1971 when this was more or less true, but factionalism and bigotry keep popping out like roaches attempting to destroy that statement. I am egalitarian, have had my own business for years, have worked many theatres where tickets were sold to the general public. It hasn't hurt me.
> 
> I'll sell to gays. I'll sell to Jews. I'll sell to black, white, red, green and yellow. I'll even sell to bigoted small minded twerps with religious superiority complexes!
> 
> I _have_ turned away obviously intoxicated teenagers, a single man who wanted to attend a crowded children's matinee, and people who didn't have enough cash. That is about it.
> 
> If your personal morality is so weak that you can't do business with people outside of your favored group, you don't belong in business.


What if the government forced you to serve intoxicated teens and single men who wanted to go to the child's matinee?


----------



## watcher

plowjockey said:


> That term is pretty subjective.
> 
> What if the blacks want (and they can afford it) the last rental house in a Montana town, or the item that gays want, is only available in an other store -100 miles away.


Say you have a house for rent, should the government be able to force you to lower the rent to allow that gay can afford it?




plowjockey said:


> What is there is only one doctor in town and he doesn't like blacks, jews, gays mexicans vietnamese, or any other minority?


Then they would have to find a doctor to treat them. Like it or not you have no right to medical treatment. Read this carefully. ANYTHING WHICH MUST BE TAKEN FROM ANOTHER BEFORE IT CAN BE GIVEN TO YOU *IS NOT A RIGHT!! *

Also they should not be able to have a federal official hold a gun to the doctor's head to force him to go against his personal beliefs. 




plowjockey said:


> Christians are now the first to complain about "discrimination", but are happy to take away gays rights, to attempt get married.


I have no problem with gays getting married.




plowjockey said:


> The bottom line here is that we want all the rights _we_ can get, but want to take right away from others, when we feel like it.


Now you are saying you have the "right" to buy something? What if you can't afford it should the owner of it be forced to give it to you?




plowjockey said:


> So, you'd have no problem, driving a 200 mile round trip to get some nuts and bolts, if the local merchant didn't want to serve you?


It would be a pain but I would not go in with a gun, stick it in his face and demand he sell to me. Would you?


----------



## Cornhusker

plowjockey said:


> It's the new America.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you'd have no problem, driving a 200 mile round trip to get some nuts and bolts, if the local merchant didn't want to serve you?


Welcome to Obamastan
Leave it to the left to insist on tolerance for their belief de jour yet refusing to tolerate anything or anybody else.
The hypocrisy is amazing, not surprising


----------



## watcher

gimpy said:


> Any business that requires a permit to be in business has to follow the rules of the government. That's part of having a permit. If you don't want to follow the rules then have an unlicensed business and see how far that gets you if someone tries to sue you for something.


And this power comes from where?


----------



## watcher

Harry Chickpea said:


> If you took the entire thrust of this thread and transported back to 1958, the same arguments would be used against equal rights for blacks. That in itself is telling about tolerance and intolerance. Some folks confuse morals and bigotry.


One of my points is if you believe in personal freedom you must believe someone has the right to be a bigot.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> I think that all bigotry is harmful so it's not possible to be a bigot and not be harming someone. Not least of which, the bigot is harming their own self through their bigotry but because they're a bigot they may refuse to recognize the harm they're doing to themself. A bigot who refuses to sell a certain item to a harmless, law abiding citizen simply because of their personal feelings about the citizen is just begging to have themself put out of business. There are many ways to put a bigot out of business permanently.


Ok let's switch it. What if the government forced you to buy your goods from someone who was a full blown bigot? Would you say that was wrong? Now what's the difference in that and it forcing someone from selling to someone they don't like for what ever reason?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> And this power comes from where?


Usually from "we the people" when we elect our local leaders and authorize them to make these laws.


----------



## dixiegal62

Harry Chickpea said:


> The mission statement of the country used to be "*All men are created equal*." There may have been two days in 1971 when this was more or less true, but factionalism and bigotry keep popping out like roaches attempting to destroy that statement. I am egalitarian, have had my own business for years, have worked many theatres where tickets were sold to the general public. It hasn't hurt me.
> 
> I'll sell to gays. I'll sell to Jews. I'll sell to black, white, red, green and yellow. I'll even sell to bigoted small minded twerps with religious superiority complexes!
> 
> I _have_ turned away obviously intoxicated teenagers, a single man who wanted to attend a crowded children's matinee, and people who didn't have enough cash. That is about it.
> 
> If your personal morality is so weak that you can't do business with people outside of your favored group, you don't belong in business.


 
The drunk teens I get, public intoxication is against the law. The people without enough money I get. 

The single man.... single as in alone or as in not in a relationship? I get you used a judgment call and it was probably a good one... could have been a pedophile intent on harming children.. but he could also have been someone wanting to relive a childhood memory or something perfectly innocent.. either way you made a choice to err on the side of caution and I for one am glad you did.

I'm guessing if this single man had been an openly or somehow obviously gay man and the matinee was playing something that attracted young boys and you did this he could have sued you, accusing profiling and saying you had no right to refuse service....many here would applaud his right to that.


----------



## watcher

chickenista said:


> The entire thing is beyond ludicrous.
> It's stupid.
> It's totally ackbasswards.
> 
> This is 2013.
> And we are going to do this all over again?
> 
> And I agree wholeheartedly with the above poster that pointed out the big 'what if'.
> What if it is the only pharmacy, the only dentist etc.. for 100 miles?
> 
> What will become of the Christians that the atheist pharmacist won't serve?
> Wherever will they go?
> 
> And I would do my level best to not frequent a business that discriminates against anyone.
> I will order online or go without or pool up with others to share the trips to the next town..whatever I would have to do to never get that business owner a single dime of my money.


Well there you go. No need to hold a gun to someone's head and force them to sell to you.


----------



## watcher

plowjockey said:


> Blacks only make up 12% of the U.S. population. Is it OK to discriminate against them?


As a private citizen? Yes. As a member of the government? No.

You have no right to be "liked" by everyone.


----------



## MDKatie

Glade Runner said:


> Yep, you can always count on the lefties to impose their laws, standards and rules on someone else's conscience.


Yeah, like how some christians want to make abortions illegal or tried to keep gay marriage laws from being passed? "Don't tell us what to do with our businesses, but we can tell you what to do with your bodies!"  I never understood that bit of hypocrisy.


----------



## watcher

paradox said:


> As I said before, I don't know the answer to this one, but I think our modern society can handle these issues much better than they could oh so many years ago when segregation was the status quo. I don't think more laws is what is needed to fix it - I think a little common sense is what is needed.


You are mixing issues. Segregation was government discriminating. Not selling to someone is a private sector issue. Which is the point. I'll say it again. If something must be taken from another before it can be given to you, its not a right.


----------



## watcher

plowjockey said:


> Like I said.
> 
> Your town only has one or two black family's, which is not uncommon in many small towns.
> 
> OK not to serve them? It is the businesses choice, right?
> 
> Not sure if "let the market decide" would even pertain here, or even towards the gay either.
> 
> If the town if full of prejudiced people (and they will be), they will not care - at all, if Gays or black families are denied service.
> 
> History has proven this.


So if this were the case you would have no problem with one of those family members taking a shotgun into the store and telling the business man to either sell to them or get shot? After all isn't that what the government, metaphorically (sp?), doing to him when it tells him he must sell to them?


----------



## watcher

Ozarks Tom said:


> Intolerance will not be tolerated!!
> 
> Draw your own conclusions.


There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.


----------



## watcher

susieneddy said:


> this whole thread useless. You say this or that but only if it fits your needs and wants. The hell with anyone that thinks differently than you.


I think the thread has forced several people to look at just how much they support personal freedom. I think that's a useful thing.


----------



## watcher

Buffy in Dallas said:


> Remember these?
> 
> View attachment 23818


Yep. And the owner of that business should have the right to not only post such a sign but the right to follow through.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I guess the adult thing to do if you were black and wanted to eat was to choose a different bus or water fountain. I guess women should have started their own government so they can vote.
> 
> This is the US and you can fight for what you believe is right. That is the adult thing to do.


Might want to check again. If it were a public, i.e. government funded, bus or water fountain then any one should be able to use it.

But if you bought a fountain, paid to have it installed, paid for the water used in it then YOU should have the right to say who may or may not use it.

Same thing for a bus.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

dixiegal62 said:


> The drunk teens I get, public intoxication is against the law. The people without enough money I get.
> 
> The single man.... single as in alone or as in not in a relationship? I get you used a judgment call and it was probably a good one... could have been a pedophile intent on harming children.. but he could also have been someone wanting to relive a childhood memory or something perfectly innocent.. either way you made a choice to err on the side of caution and I for one am glad you did.
> 
> I'm guessing if this single man had been an openly or somehow obviously gay man and the matinee was playing something that attracted young boys and you did this he could have sued you, accusing profiling and saying you had no right to refuse service....many here would applaud his right to that.


It happened more than once. Back when there were ushers it wouldn't have been as much of a problem. Theatres reserve the right to tell people where to sit and he would have been watched closely. In addition, the ushers physically patrolling the aisles every five to ten minutes (COMMON in a kiddie show before the mid 1970s) would have turned the situation much safer. I never had a situation where there was a hint of resistance to me or the cashier saying no. That is just the way it was.

Legalities in theatres can be odd. A ticket is actually a contract receipt for a limited license to view one movie. All my tickets carry the warning "Management reserves the right to refuse admission by refunding ticket price. Good only for performance indicated." That sets the terms of the contract between customer and theatre. The "out" is that by refunding the ticket, the person has been made whole and the contract void. I've used that many times.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Usually from "we the people" when we elect our local leaders and authorize them to make these laws.


The problem the way things are supposed to be "we the people" can't make laws unless those laws come from a power given to the government in the constitution (state or federal). IOW, if "we the people" made a law saying it was legal to burn your neighbor's house down if he was less than 6' tall the courts should tell us "Sorry, you can't have such a law."


----------



## Harry Chickpea

watcher said:


> Might want to check again. If it were a public, i.e. government funded, bus or water fountain then any one should be able to use it.
> 
> But if you bought a fountain, paid to have it installed, paid for the water used in it then YOU should have the right to say who may or may not use it.
> 
> Same thing for a bus.


Not true. Food service licenses and the laws for keeping them can require an establishment to provide tap water at no charge, even to customers who do not purchase anything. The law in Alabama has been around for a while. I am not sure of the original reasoning, but the "if the person has to take a pill" was commonly used to explain it to newbies.


----------



## paradox

watcher said:


> I think the thread has forced several people to look at just how much they support personal freedom. I think that's a useful thing.


Agreed. I love discussing (even if it turns to arguing) current event topics. I think it gives people the chance to dig a little deeper and explore what they believe and why. And perhaps even to find some consistency in their stances. At least that is what I get out of it.


----------



## paradox

watcher said:


> You are mixing issues. Segregation was government discriminating. Not selling to someone is a private sector issue. Which is the point. I'll say it again. If something must be taken from another before it can be given to you, its not a right.


I agree with you that segregation has nothing to do with this bill in AZ. I had said earlier it wasn't comparing apples to apples. But people keep trying to say it will open up the ability to start putting blacks in the back of the bus again so I had to comment that I think society is a bit different these days. 

My understanding is the bill deals solely with upholding religious rights. And I may be unschooled here, but I can't think of a recognized religion that discriminates based on skin color.

Also, welcome back to the party watcher! I am sitting here going through all your responses. You have been busy. LOL


----------



## Harry Chickpea

"My understanding is the bill deals solely with upholding religious rights. And I may be unschooled here, but I can't think of a recognized religion that discriminates based on skin color."

LOL! Haven't been to Alabama, have you?


----------



## Glade Runner

MDKatie said:


> Yeah, like how some christians want to make abortions illegal or tried to keep gay marriage laws from being passed? "Don't tell us what to do with our businesses, but we can tell you what to do with your bodies!"  I never understood that bit of hypocrisy.


Things perceived as murder and perversion don't fall within the realm of conscious.


----------



## paradox

MDKatie said:


> Yeah, like how some christians want to make abortions illegal or tried to keep gay marriage laws from being passed? "Don't tell us what to do with our businesses, but we can tell you what to do with your bodies!"  I never understood that bit of hypocrisy.


First it isn't only Christians who want to make abortion illegal, and also not ALL people who profess to be Christian want it to be illegal. I know lots of "pro choice Christians". How they reconcile that with God later on is their business.

Second, to understand why we are so adamantly against it is because we believe the body INSIDE your body IS NOT your body. It is a separate human who has the right not to be murdered by you or anyone else. If you wanted to cut your arm into several pieces and dispose of it - you are free to do so because that is your body.


----------



## dixiegal62

Harry Chickpea said:


> "My understanding is the bill deals solely with upholding religious rights. And I may be unschooled here, but I can't think of a recognized religion that discriminates based on skin color."
> 
> LOL! Haven't been to Alabama, have you?


 
Oh please!  I live in Alabama and can say that it not true. Perhaps you should move to another state if you feel it's so bad here.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Oh please!  I live in Alabama and can say that it not true. Perhaps you should move to another state if you feel it's so bad here.


We have members of this very site that believe that Adam and Eve were created on the 8th day and that all the rest were created on the 6th day and are therefore beasts and not in the image of God.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> and single men who wanted to go to the child's matinee?


I find it very unfair we as a society tend to label all single men as sexual predators. Is there a rule saying single men are not allowed to see a "children's" movie? I wasn't aware there were rules about that sort of thing. 

Here's a good blog post about a *gasp* man at a playground.


----------



## MDKatie

paradox said:


> *and also not ALL people who profess to be Christian want it to be illegal.*


That's why I said *some*.


----------



## gjensen

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Usually from "we the people" when we elect our local leaders and authorize them to make these laws.


That is the scary part.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> Ok let's switch it. What if the government forced you to buy your goods from someone who was a full blown bigot? Would you say that was wrong? Now what's the difference in that and it forcing someone from selling to someone they don't like for what ever reason?


If that were the case then it would be a Catch 22 situation. It would mean that the bigot was also being forced to sell his goods to me. There's no way around it and it's a fact - if I'm forced to do business with the bigot then the bigot is also being forced to do business with me. So the bigot and I would both be forced to do business even though neither one of us likes to do business with each other because of what we represent to each other. 

Well that's just tough but business is money and money is no respecter of what people advertise about their personal preferences. It is certainly doable if the bigot and I don't openly represent our beliefs and both keep our mouthes shut about our selves and about what we don't like about each other and just get on with business and get the business over and done with.

Don't ask don't tell should apply to more people than just homosexuals in the military, in business it should also apply to people's religious beliefs and religious bigotry and any other form of bigotry that you can think of. 

If more people would keep their big traps shut about their personal sex lives and their religious beliefs and their likes and dislikes then what nobody else knows about them wouldn't hurt them.

Too many people just don't know when it's prudent to exercise discretion and keep their mouthes shut about what is nobody else's business. If gay people want a wedding cake then go ahead and order the wedding cake and there's no need to tell the baker that it's for a gay wedding. There's no need for the religious cake baker to ask the customer if it's a gay or straight wedding and no need to tell the customer that he's a religious baker. It's nobody else's business in either case and if neither one of them had said anything about their preferences then what they didn't know wouldn't hurt them and neither of them would be having government interference happening now.

Stupid, stupid people with big mouthes. I have no sympathy for any of them.


----------



## paradox

That works up to a point and is probably the case 99% of the time Paumon. But if they want two women on top of the cake that is kind of a give away. And in the case of the photographer being forced to photograph a wedding I am pretty sure he would notice he was taking pictures of two men. So the issue is what do we do when discretion can't solve the problem on its own.


----------



## gjensen

The emotion in these debates are not rooted in logic. 

Debates like this proves to me that moral clarity has packed her bags and headed out of town. 

Regardless of what your position is, if you believe the homosexual couple has the right to get married, then it would be natural to assume that I would have the right to not participate in that wedding. That is simple logic. All the twisting and turning will not change the issue. It is what it is. 

I do not have any issue with living and let live, why is it not acceptable for me to live freely? 

We came here to escape a totalitarian religion only to be oppressed by totalitarian non religion. It is a scary place to be when the government can rule the hearts of men. 

I have no say in the fact that over half of the population hates the idea of or God himself. I also believe that this portion of the population has no say in how I choose to live or believe. It goes both ways. 

I make my decisions based on what I believe is right or wrong, and I could not care less whether or not I am agreed with. It is irrelevant to me. I believe that my actions and the results of my actions speak for themselves. 

I promise you that I would not have participated in that wedding. Period. Nothing to debate. You can like it or not like it. Makes no difference to me. 
Now if that same couple would have come to me for any other kind of help, and I was able, they would have received it gladly. I would not however, participate in anything that I believed was wrong. I do not feel like they are less than me, that is not a judgment for me to make. Still, I do not have to compromise my stand to be civil. 

I will not waver or lose my rights to accommodate someone else. I am not going to have an agenda shoved down my throat. 

My position is clear, and I am not moving.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> We have members of this very site that believe that Adam and Eve were created on the 8th day and that all the rest were created on the 6th day and are therefore beasts and not in the image of God.


 
What does that have to do with a comment about Alabamians being racist?


----------



## watcher

Harry Chickpea said:


> Not true. Food service licenses and the laws for keeping them can require an establishment to provide tap water at no charge, even to customers who do not purchase anything. The law in Alabama has been around for a while. I am not sure of the original reasoning, but the "if the person has to take a pill" was commonly used to explain it to newbies.


Ok so the government has the power to force you to provide a service at no charge. Want to tell me just where that power comes from? And if they can force you to provide one service for free what prevents them from forcing you to give others? What if they required you to give away one free meal for each 10 you sell? Would you consider that a violation of your freedom?


----------



## Vash

The amount of logical (argumentative) fallacies in this thread is *TOO [----] HIGH!*


----------



## watcher

paradox said:


> I agree with you that segregation has nothing to do with this bill in AZ. I had said earlier it wasn't comparing apples to apples. But people keep trying to say it will open up the ability to start putting blacks in the back of the bus again so I had to comment that I think society is a bit different these days.
> 
> My understanding is the bill deals solely with upholding religious rights. And I may be unschooled here, but I can't think of a recognized religion that discriminates based on skin color.


You, in your personal life and privately owned business, should be able to discriminate against anyone based on race, religion, height, gender or whatever you wish. 




paradox said:


> Also, welcome back to the party watcher! I am sitting here going through all your responses. You have been busy. LOL


I post one little thing, go to work for a few hours and when I get back there's 3 pages of msg to go through. I hate to think what would happen if I had been busy all day.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> If that were the case then it would be a Catch 22 situation. It would mean that the bigot was also being forced to sell his goods to me. There's no way around it and it's a fact - if I'm forced to do business with the bigot then the bigot is also being forced to do business with me. So the bigot and I would both be forced to do business even though neither one of us likes to do business with each other because of what we represent to each other.


You didn't answer the question. Would you feel it was fair for you to be forced to buy from some you didn't wish to support? Say he used the money from his business to support groups which pushed to take legal rights from you?




Paumon said:


> Don't ask don't tell should apply to more people than just homosexuals in the military, in business it should also apply to people's religious beliefs and religious bigotry and any other form of bigotry that you can think of.


Interesting, are you saying that we should restrict speech?


----------



## Paumon

paradox said:


> That works up to a point and is probably the case 99% of the time Paumon. But if they want two women on top of the cake that is kind of a give away. And in the case of the photographer being forced to photograph a wedding I am pretty sure he would notice he was taking pictures of two men. So the issue is what do we do when discretion can't solve the problem on its own.


There is always a way to solve a problem if one takes some time and effort. The figures on top of the cake is easy to solve. I can go into any wedding cake bakery or supplier and buy all manner of assortments of figurines separately to mix and match to go on top of the cake. The baker doesn't have to put it on there. Or I can shop around and ask several bakers which of them is willing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. There is always someone willing to do so. In the matter of the photographer I can shop around and ask any number of professional photographers if they will do gay weddings and be 100% guaranteed that I'll find several that will be more than happy to take the commission. Chances are many of those photographers are themselves gay because photography and other art forms often goes with the territory. There is no need for anybody to be forced to bake a cake nor take photographs against their wishes if the wedding couple and the people they are commissioning are being prudent instead of blatant and dogmatic.


----------



## Vash

dixiegal62 said:


> What does that have to do with a comment about Alabamians being racist?


Absolutely nothing. It's a tangent (and a bad one at that).

Some (on both sides) are having a hard time keeping this "discussion" logical.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> You didn't answer the question. Would you feel it was fair for you to be forced to buy from some you didn't wish to support? Say he used the money from his business to support groups which pushed to take legal rights from you?


No, it's not fair. It's not fair to me and it's not fair to the bigot either to be forced to do business with me. Neither one of us wishes to do business with each other but we are BOTH enemies being forced to do so by an outside agency who is also our enemy. But remember here you are now talking about an imagined made up situation and so I'll take the imagining a bit further. Since we both do not wish to support each other we will both take the attitude that the enemy of my enemy is my friend so we will join forces and turn against the oppressive outside agency that is the enemy forcing both of us to deal with each other. In the long run all three of us will destroy each other.




watcher said:


> Interesting, are you saying that we should restrict speech?


There are absolutely times when we should all have the discretion to restrict our speech and keep our opinions to ourselves for the sake of the peace of all. I believe it's called diplomacy. Something that seems to be lacking in bigots.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> The problem the way things are supposed to be "we the people" can't make laws unless those laws come from a power given to the government in the constitution (state or federal). IOW, if "we the people" made a law saying it was legal to burn your neighbor's house down if he was less than 6' tall the courts should tell us "Sorry, you can't have such a law."


That is correct... all laws must conform to the limits placed upon the various lower governments by the US Constitution. Our constitution is designed to protect everyone's basic rights as much as is realistically possible. Discrimination based upon religion or race are both disallowed in the interest of protecting every ones rights. Discriminating due to lack of funds... quite another story. If a feller has the price of admission... he has the right to see the elephants roller skating just like anyone else.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> There are absolutely times when *we should all have the discretion to restrict our speech* and keep our opinions to ourselves for the sake of the peace of all.


I think he was asking if the .gov should be allowed to restrict our speech.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

watcher said:


> Ok so the government has the power to force you to provide a service at no charge. Want to tell me just where that power comes from? And if they can force you to provide one service for free what prevents them from forcing you to give others? What if they required you to give away one free meal for each 10 you sell? Would you consider that a violation of your freedom?


Power over others comes from force, threats, coercion, kickbacks and peer pressure. Moral imperatives only provide structure. If I was required to tithe meals, I'd simply increase pricing to meet the overhead.

You are playing. Here is one back atcha. If I bought a cake from you, saying it was for a party, and then used it at a satanic gay pedophile wedding, would you be participating? OR, if I bought a wedding cake from you SAYING it was for that purpose, and then gave it to starving kids to eat, would you have done an evil deed by selling the cake?

How about if the cake was MADE by a gay couple in your employ for use in a religiously pure ceremony? Would the cake be evil?


----------



## paradox

Paumon said:


> There is always a way to solve a problem if one takes some time and effort. The figures on top of the cake is easy to solve. I can go into any wedding cake bakery or supplier and buy all manner of assortments of figurines separately to mix and match to go on top of the cake. The baker doesn't have to put it on there. In the matter of the photographer I can shop around and ask any number of professional photographers if they will do gay weddings and be 100% guaranteed that I'll find several that will be more than happy to take the commission. Chances are many of those photographers are themselves gay because photography and other art forms often goes with the territory. There is no need for anybody to be forced to bake a cake nor take photographs against their wishes if the wedding couple and the people they are commissioning are being prudent instead of blatant and dogmatic.


Yes I feel the same way. Having to call the next baker or photographer in the phone book isn't enough of a "hardship" to warrant a discrimination lawsuit and an attempt to put them out of business. But sadly there are too many people out there that thrive on the drama and publicity and the money generated by lawsuits.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> What does that have to do with a comment about Alabamians being racist?


If the Albanian justifies racism using that religious belief as the basis, it has a lot to do with it.


----------



## Vash

Harry Chickpea said:


> How about if the cake was MADE by a gay couple in your employ for use in a religiously pure ceremony? Would the cake be evil?


A person can only make an informed decision on the information they have. Also, the object in your example is just that, an object. It is amoral.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> *If *the Albanian justifies racism using that religious belief as the basis, it has a lot to do with it.


So, what you're saying is that your earlier comment was a (sweeping) generalization based on prejudicial assumptions and not on fact?


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Chances are many of those photographers are themselves gay because photography and other art forms often goes with the territory.


Sweeping generalization...


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> So, what you're saying is that your earlier comment was a (sweeping) generalization based on prejudicial assumptions and not on fact?


No more sweeping than the original post I responded to and actually a fact that at least one Alabamian who posts on this site believes this.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> I think he was asking if the .gov should be allowed to restrict our speech.


I know what he was asking. My point is, if people are sensible and have a modicum of diplomacy then no government should need to restrict speech. If people are too immature to exercise diplomacy and their speech causes harmful repercussions for others then government needs to step in with restrictions. That is what government is there for. We elect governments to babysit us all and protect us from ourselves and from each other.



Vash said:


> Sweeping generalization...


Of course it is, but it also happens to be a harmless truth. What is the point of denying the truth?


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Of course it is, but it also happens to be a harmless truth. What is the point of denying the truth?


If it were true it wouldn't be a generalization. Unless you have some kind of stats to back up the claim it remains an (unfounded) assumption.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> I know what he was asking. My point is, *if people are sensible* and have a modicum of diplomacy then no government should need to restrict speech. If people are too immature to exercise diplomacy and their speech causes harmful repercussions for others then government needs to step in with restrictions. That is what government is there for. We elect governments to babysit us all and protect us from ourselves and from each other.


Here is the schtick. Who determines what is sensible? YOU, obviously, have it in YOUR mind what is acceptable and what isn't, but that doesn't mean (as this thread clearly indicates) it is the same for everyone else. What makes one person's OPINION on sensibility more right then the next person?


----------



## Harry Chickpea

RE: racist Not "believes" - experienced. To the point that one of the program sponsor churches for Alabama Public Radio makes a big deal every week on the radio that they DON'T exclude based on race, etc..

I agree though, it is a side point to the frivolity in this thread.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> *No more sweeping than the original post I responded to *and actually a fact that at least one Alabamian who posts on this site believes this.


It's WAY more sweeping then Dixiegal's because hers is based on the fact that she lives in Alabama and interacts with its people on a regular basis whereas your assumptions are based on the opinions of a single forum member.


----------



## Vash

Harry Chickpea said:


> *I agree though, it is a side point to the frivolity in this thread.*


Very much so... :lookout:


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> It's WAY more sweeping then Dixiegal's because hers is based on the fact that she lives in Alabama and interacts with its people on a regular basis whereas your assumptions are based on the opinions of a single forum member.


In your opinion. I am not assuming. I know what I stated is a fact right from the horses mouth.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> In your opinion. I am not assuming. I know what I stated is a fact right from the horses mouth.


Your statement about the forum member may be a fact but your IMPLICATION of the state of Alabama is NOT based on fact.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> Here is the schtick. Who determines what is sensible? YOU, obviously, have it in YOUR mind what is acceptable and what isn't, but that doesn't mean (as this thread clearly indicates) it is the same for everyone else. *What makes one person's OPINION on sensibility more right then the next person?*


The Governments that we elected to babysit us. The government is might, and might is right.  Your mileage may vary. I gather that the majority of Americans don't ever like their government and are ever mistrustful and fearful of it in spite of the fact that they are the ones who put their government there. I've never quite understood that kind of mentality but be that as it may I like and trust my own government and don't fear it because they generally listen to what the people want and have the whole country's best interests at heart. So, your government may not be right for you but mine is right for me and I'm happy with what they determine is acceptable and what isn't. I can tell you this much, this silly situation that you guys are dealing with down there with religious right and gay cakes and unwilling photographers and righteous indignation of bigots is an immature farce that would never happen here.

You know we're just going round in circles here, eh? That being the case, I'm going out shopping now. Carry on.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> I can tell you this much, this silly situation that you guys are dealing with down there with religious right and gay cakes and unwilling photographers and righteous* indignation of bigots *is an immature farce that would never happen here.


----------



## joseph97297

dixiegal62 said:


> Makes a person wonder if Adam and Eve had to sign a contract


Well, seeing as they couldn't abide and honor a verbal contract, I don't think they would much honor a written one........


----------



## homstdr74

So, since so many are aggravated that Christians are actually standing up for their faith instead of caving into the mainstream paganism, I suppose that the PC followers will consider what this guy is doing to be a good thing?:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/weho-bar-to-ban-lawmakers-who-support-anti-gay-legislation/

*âWeHo Bar To âDeny Entryâ To Lawmakers Who Back Anti-Gay Legislationâ*

âSouthern California lawmakers who support legislation to discriminate against gays and lesbians now have one less hotspot to visit in West Hollywood.

David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for âbills to allow for discrimination against LGBT peopleâ to a âDeny Entry List.â


----------



## snowcap

This bill was as stupid as sueing some one for not making a cake.


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> I think that all bigotry is harmful so it's not possible to be a bigot and not be harming someone. Not least of which, the bigot is harming their own self through their bigotry but because they're a bigot they may refuse to recognize the harm they're doing to themself. A bigot who refuses to sell a certain item to a harmless, law abiding citizen simply because of their personal feelings about the citizen is just begging to have themself put out of business. There are many ways to put a bigot out of business permanently.


Sorry, I just can't seem to get past this, nor get an answer as to how you propose to accomplish that. It's important, because whatever drastic measure you think you can employ to permanently put someone out of business, aparently, all you need to do to justify it is to decide, on your own, that the person is a bigot, and therefore he and his family deserve to have their income, assets and the work, often of generations taken from them, effectively, in many instances, destroying a family.

Moreover, I firmly believe that bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. I believe that the most harmfull bigotry is the "soft" kind, where you tell a black man that he is incapable of caring for himself without a protective layer of government to insure that nobody insult him or reject him, or telling a gay man that he is too sensitive to have to bear up under the same disaproval that all of us experience at one time or another in our lives, over one thing or another.

Hard bigotry detests anyone who is different, while soft bigotry tells anyone who is different that they are "beyond the common run" and deserving of special treatment. According to circumstances they trade places regularly as to which is most damaging.

Finally, this was all supposed to be about the proposed law in Arizona, and whether it is a good or a bad thing. Allow me to put a final senerio into your head, since you seem to have decided that we truly need that law.

Consider that strange little Babtist church that likes to picket soldier's funerals and carry signs that state "God hates-----" (homosexuals) in the crudest possible terms.

Without the law that gives businesses the right to refuse service on religious grounds, that very group can insist that they want to have a party and need a great big three layer cake with that slogan on top, and if they are refused, they can shut the place down for "bigotry".

Better consider what the enemys of equality can do with the ammo you give them. They also consider those who disagree with them as "bigots".....Joe


----------



## mmoetc

joebill said:


> Sorry, I just can't seem to get past this, nor get an answer as to how you propose to accomplish that. It's important, because whatever drastic measure you think you can employ to permanently put someone out of business, aparently, all you need to do to justify it is to decide, on your own, that the person is a bigot, and therefore he and his family deserve to have their income, assets and the work, often of generations taken from them, effectively, in many instances, destroying a family.
> 
> Moreover, I firmly believe that bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. I believe that the most harmfull bigotry is the "soft" kind, where you tell a black man that he is incapable of caring for himself without a protective layer of government to insure that nobody insult him or reject him, or telling a gay man that he is too sensitive to have to bear up under the same disaproval that all of us experience at one time or another in our lives, over one thing or another.
> 
> Hard bigotry detests anyone who is different, while soft bigotry tells anyone who is different that they are "beyond the common run" and deserving of special treatment. According to circumstances they trade places regularly as to which is most damaging.
> 
> Finally, this was all supposed to be about the proposed law in Arizona, and whether it is a good or a bad thing. Allow me to put a final senerio into your head, since you seem to have decided that we truly need that law.
> 
> Consider that strange little Babtist church that likes to picket soldier's funerals and carry signs that state "God hates-----" (homosexuals) in the crudest possible terms.
> 
> Without the law that gives businesses the right to refuse service on religious grounds, that very group can insist that they want to have a party and need a great big three layer cake with that slogan on top, and if they are refused, they can shut the place down for "bigotry".
> 
> Better consider what the enemys of equality can do with the ammo you give them. They also consider those who disagree with them as "bigots".....Joe


Not agreeing to put an offensive slogan on a cake would be defendable. Refusing to put that slogan on for one group but not another would not be.


----------



## homstdr74

So the Governor caved to the pagan bullying and vetoed the bill. Another example of why we are homesteading---to get away from the decay of the world. I'm glad we could raise our children away from those people, both the pushy ones and the spineless officials.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-vetoes-controversial-religious-rights-bill/


----------



## Roadking

Some of y'all ought to re-read your sig lines...just sayin'.

Matt


----------



## unregistered41671

Roadking said:


> Some of y'all ought to re-read your sig lines...just sayin'.
> 
> Matt


I kinda like mine.


----------



## Roadking

Not all PB, just some.

Matt


----------



## Paumon

joebill said:


> Sorry, I just can't seem to get past this, nor get an answer as to how you propose to accomplish that. It's important, because whatever drastic measure you think you can employ to permanently put someone out of business, aparently, all you need to do to justify it is to decide, on your own, that the person is a bigot, and therefore he and his family deserve to have their income, assets and the work, often of generations taken from them, effectively, in many instances, destroying a family.


You're asking me to advise you on ways to accomplish putting bigots out of business. Why? :shrug: Sorry but I'm not going to advise you there. A girl has to keep some secret card tricks up her sleeves for in the event she needs to use them. I'll tell you this though - I think you'll find it generally takes more than one person on their own to come to such a conclusion and even more to do the deed, it takes a cooperative group effort from several people with the same conclusions and convictions to put a bigot out of business.



joebill said:


> Moreover, I firmly believe that bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. I believe that the most harmfull bigotry is the "soft" kind, where you tell a black man that he is incapable of caring for himself without a protective layer of government to insure that nobody insult him or reject him, or telling a gay man that he is too sensitive to have to bear up under the same disaproval that all of us experience at one time or another in our lives, over one thing or another.
> 
> Hard bigotry detests anyone who is different, while soft bigotry tells anyone who is different that they are "beyond the common run" and deserving of special treatment. According to circumstances they trade places regularly as to which is most damaging.


I think both kinds of bigotry as you describe them are wrong.



joebill said:


> Finally, this was all supposed to be about the proposed law in Arizona, and whether it is a good or a bad thing. Allow me to put a final senerio into your head, since you seem to have decided that we truly need that law.


I never said I thought you needed that law. I think it's an insane law to try to enact and I'm pleased to hear that your Governor has vetoed it. She sounds like a sensible woman, so good for her.



joebill said:


> Consider that strange little Babtist church that likes to picket soldier's funerals and carry signs that state "God hates-----" (homosexuals) in the crudest possible terms.
> 
> *Without the law that gives businesses the right to refuse service on religious grounds, that very group can insist that they want to have a party and need a great big three layer cake with that slogan on top, and if they are refused, they can shut the place down for "bigotry".*
> 
> Better consider what the enemys of equality can do with the ammo you give them. They also consider those who disagree with them as "bigots".....Joe


It sounds like you are the one who thinks you need that law to have the right to refuse service on religious grounds. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I'm reading out of the bolded statement.

That depraved little group of abusive cowards you're referring to - yes I know who you're talking about - you send them on back up here again if they can ever be persuaded to get up the nerve to dare to try to confront Canadian society for a third time. I'll be thrilled to bake a big three layer cake for them. Free of charge with any slogan they want and with extra special secret ingredients to delight, confound and overwhelm their senses and base sensuality. I can guarantee you they'll have such an out-of-this-world experience that they'll suffer a profound loss of what little dignity they have remaining granted to them back home where they come from. They'll go running back home with their tails between their legs again and won't ever dare to tell anyone about the manner of their loss of dignity or how it was caused to happen and they'll never want to eat another cake for the rest of their lives. :heh: Who knows, they might even have an epiphany and see the error of their ways and stop their abuses.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


>


Vash I'm not a righteously indignant bigot as you suggested, I'm an opinionated northern barbarian with ice crystals in my veins and mighty proud of it. 

I love that kettle and now I want a big one just like that. :thumb:

:kiss:


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> So the Governor caved to the pagan bullying and vetoed the bill. Another example of why we are homesteading---to get away from the decay of the world. I'm glad we could raise our children away from those people, both the pushy ones and the spineless officials.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-vetoes-controversial-religious-rights-bill/


It is quite possible that the good governor read her copy of our US Constitution. 

Fourteenth amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. *No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.

bolding mine


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is quite possible that the good governor read her copy of our US Constitution.
> 
> Fourteenth amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. *No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.
> 
> bolding mine


Well, so much for the First Amendment:

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


----------



## joebill

Don't need any advice from you, P, just wondered if you had what it takes to confess how far you are willing to go to get your way. Our home-bred liberals seem to think that anything they do is justified as long as it is for the leftist cause, but they never seem to want to specify, just lie, cheat, steal, lie some more. It';s how Obama got in office and how he stayed there through the last election, and our left seems to think it was perfectlly justified. No tactic too despicable as long as it serves the left. No act too vile, as long as the victim can be labeled properly.

Fact is, our pet liberals would LOVE to put a lot of businesses under the clay, but those businesses seem to prosper because, not in spite of it. I have no idea what kind of businessman whould let you put him out of business for life, but I don't think we have many of those down here, unless you truly mean to shoot them......oops, I forgot....I mean spear them.........Joe


----------



## beowoulf90

MDKatie said:


> Yeah, like how some christians want to make abortions illegal or tried to keep gay marriage laws from being passed? "Don't tell us what to do with our businesses, but we can tell you what to do with your bodies!"  I never understood that bit of hypocrisy.


Well first off.. Some like myself Don't care what you do to your body. That is until you force me to pay for your follies. 

If you want to abort your prodigy, then so be it, but don't tell me I have no business in your body and then tell me i have to pay for it.. They tell me I have no business in the recipe of Coke-Cola, but then they don't force me to buy /pay for it either. (That is unless they are collecting some type of welfare which burns my rear already).

I also don't care if gays get married. but at the same time these same gays want to force the church/others to perform the wedding..

Sorry I don't accept that! By you and others trying to force your beliefs on others, negates Freedom of religion. Yet in the same breath you will lie and say you support freedom of religion. You can't have both.

Oh by the way, I'm a Pagan that follows a Teutonic/Norse tradition. 
I am a Constitutionalist who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to my death (and beyond if I have a say about it).


----------



## homstdr74

Thereâll be no end to these lawsuits by crazy people, and if the âgovernmentâ (PC people) are so willing to give up our Nation to a minority of naysayers, why donât they just construct a database of every single individual in this Nation, nay, in the entire *WORLD*, that details what that individualâs life is about, then mandate that every business owner has to look into this database every time an individual comes into their store to see what they can or cannot say or do relative to that person. Then the PC people could arrest anyone who dared to think, say or do anything differently than they have decreed. 

Problem solved.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> Well, so much for the First Amendment:
> 
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


I fail to see how the fourteenth amendment protections have any affect on the first? please explain. No one is asking anyone either to or not to practice their religion. The bill in question however would have allowed such, as well as denying basic rights based upon ones religion. When one opens a business to the public... it means open to ALL members of the public that have the jingle in their pockets to pay for whatever goods or service you provide.


----------



## beowoulf90

homstdr74 said:


> So the Governor caved to the pagan bullying and vetoed the bill. Another example of why we are homesteading---to get away from the decay of the world. I'm glad we could raise our children away from those people, both the pushy ones and the spineless officials.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-vetoes-controversial-religious-rights-bill/


You have it wrong! They didn't cave to the "pagan" bullying, they caved to socialist/communist bullying..

There are many of us pagans who stand firmly with the Constitution and individual freedom(s) 

Ayn Rand said; (paraphrasing) the biggest minority is the individual, and those are the ones whose Rights we should be defending..

I strongly agree with that...

Had to edit because I had the quote wrong. So here is her quote;
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand


----------



## Twobottom

Of course you should be able to sell your property ( or not sell it ) to whom ever you like for any reason. But the laws are so screwed up, and we are living in a very mixed up confused time.

There are in consistencies everywhere...senior housing developments can exclude sale to anyone under 55, but you can't refuse to sell your home to anyone over 55. You can have a black organization that exists to promote the interests of people with black skin, but if you try to have an organization dedicated to helping people only with white skin you are a racist.

There are "gay clubs" that can exclude straight people from entry, but not the other way around.

The entire system is broken. There are no guiding principles because the people no longer have any guiding principles. It's just mass confusion, and every man for himself.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see how the fourteenth amendment protections have any affect on the first? please explain. No one is asking anyone either to or not to practice their religion. The bill in question however would have allowed such, as well as denying basic rights based upon ones religion. When one opens a business to the public... it means open to ALL members of the public that have the jingle in their pockets to pay for whatever goods or service you provide.


There's an old saying: "Your rights end where my nose begins". 

If you, or anyone else, comes into my store and begins demanding their "rights", I'm gonna have you tossed out on your keester. I've done it before, in fact locked the door on a particularly obnoxious customer, and I'll do it again. Their PC BS can go to H, for all I care.


----------



## homstdr74

beowoulf90 said:


> You have it wrong! *They didn't cave to the "pagan" bullying, they caved to socialist/communist bullying..*
> 
> There are many of us pagans who stand firmly with the Constitution and individual freedom(s)
> 
> Ayn Rand said; (paraphrasing) the biggest minority is the individual, and those are the ones whose Rights we should be defending..
> 
> I strongly agree with that...


OK, I'm on your side, just using phrases and words according to my religion and tradition.


----------



## mmoetc

Jan Brewer caved in to what politicians always cave in to- the influence of money.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> There's an old saying: "Your rights end where my nose begins".


A good saying for sure. You might want to look at it more closely. As in lets not punch the next feller in the nose just because he is "different". You might even want to rephrase it just a bit "my rights end where your nose begins"


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> If you, or anyone else, comes into my store and begins demanding their "rights", I'm gonna have you tossed out on your keester. I've done it before, in fact locked the door on a particularly obnoxious customer, and I'll do it again. Their PC BS can go to H, for all I care.


Thats a good way to lose a store.... depending upon your reasoning behind tossing someone out. If you toss them out for being obnoxious, disrupting business, or becoming violent those are pretty good reasons... tossing someone out for being Jewish, handicapped, or several other reasons... I suggest you lawyer up before you toss em to the street.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A good saying for sure. You might want to look at it more closely. As in lets not punch the next feller in the nose just because he is "different". You might even want to rephrase it just a bit "my rights end where your nose begins"


Don't know or care much about "different". People are people, and in this Nation, we are all Americans and nothing else or I don't care much about what isn't. 

Not going to rephrase my entire life for the sake of "different".


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats a good way to lose a store.... depending upon your reasoning behind tossing someone out. If you toss them out for being obnoxious, disrupting business, or becoming violent those are pretty good reasons... tossing someone out for being Jewish, handicapped, or several other reasons... I suggest you lawyer up before you toss em to the street.


Once again, I don't care about "different", as long as no one brings it up. If people keep their shenanigans and other proclivities to themselves, then it's their business, not mine. But if they bring it into my business and demand that their business is more important than mine, out they go. Been doing that for years, never lost a customer who plays by the rules. What are those? We are all Americans EQUALLY, no one's rights are more important than anyone else's, and that includes my rights*.*


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> Don't know or care much about "different". *People are people, and in this Nation, we are all Americans and nothing else* or I don't care much about what isn't.
> 
> Not going to rephrase my entire life for the sake of "different".


I like that part I bolded and agree with it 100 percent. Especially when dealing with someone who would refuse service to a fellow american. 

Didnt ask you to rephrase your entire life.... just that one little phrase, in hopes you would catch the significance of its meaning. We ALL have rights, and we all have noses.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> Once again, I don't care about "different", as long as no one brings it up. If people keep their shenanigans and other proclivities to themselves, then it's their business, not mine. But if they bring it into my business and demand that their business is more important than mine, out they go. Been doing that for years, never lost a customer who plays by the rules. What are those? We are all Americans EQUALLY, no one's rights are more important than anyone else's, and that includes my rights*.*


very good, I think we are pretty much on the same page here. The problem I had with this bill was that it would allow people to discriminate against some of our fellow americans just because they wanted to.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I like that part I bolded and agree with it 100 percent. Especially when dealing with someone who would refuse service to a fellow american.
> 
> Didnt ask you to rephrase your entire life.... just that one little phrase, in hopes you would catch the significance of its meaning. *We ALL have rights*, and we all have noses.


As long as you respect the rights of others by not intruding on their religion. Once you've brought up something that's intrinsically evil as a right you insist is more important than the rights of a person who opposes evil (let's not get into moral equivalencies, because that's a circular argument), then all bets are off.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> As long as you respect the rights of others by not intruding on their religion. Once you've brought up something that's intrinsically evil as a right you insist is more important than the rights of a person who opposes evil (let's not get into moral equivalencies, because that's a circular argument), then all bets are off.


I agree with you that one fellers evil is often another fellers slice of the american dream. best to leave all those things out of the discussion.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree with you that one fellers evil is often another fellers slice of the american dream. best to leave all those things out of the discussion.


Not to be too argumentative here grin but when it comes to religion, that IS the discussion. That's why it's always best for people to operate on an even keel as Americans, and not bring up humanity's worst aspects as some sort of yardstick by which all else must be measured, which is what these various "law"suits are meant to do.


----------



## bowdonkey

Roadking said:


> Some of y'all ought to re-read your sig lines...just sayin'.
> 
> Matt


I'm workin on it!:buds:


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> Not to be too argumentative here grin but when it comes to religion, that IS the discussion. That's why it's always best for people to operate on an even keel as Americans, and not bring up humanity's worst aspects as some sort of yardstick by which all else must be measured, which is what these various "law"suits are meant to do.


I think that is also probably one of the reasons the founding fathers deliberately left religion OUT of the game when they set up the rules of the game.


----------



## paradox

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is quite possible that the good governor read her copy of our US Constitution.
> 
> Fourteenth amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. *No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.
> 
> bolding mine


So the first bold part does not apply to the business owner who has a right to freely practice their religion, but only to the person who is too lazy to simply call another bakery or photographer who would gladly serve them?

This isn't meant to be snarky I am honestly trying to get a handle on your position, because when I read that, what stands out to me is that the greater encroachment on rights is happening to the person who is being sued and having their livelihood destroyed.


----------



## Ohio Rusty

There are several busnesses on the Ohio State Campus that are owned and run by Palestinans and Iranians, and they refuse to sell any of their baked goods to any of the Jewish people on campus. Jewish students aren't allowed in their stores. ..... That discrimination must be OK because no one is raising any kind of fuss about that. We don't dare say anything against anyone from the Middle East .... ...... physical altercations have happened every year when a jewish kid walks down the sidewalk in front of those stores.

Ohio Rusty ><>

"If you run away, you just die tired ......"


----------



## Ambereyes

A very long time friend and I were talking about this, he was telling me about some of his experiences. OnE that really stood out was in a halal market, that he had used frequently. He told me that they had always been helpful and friendly but all that changed when he tried shopping with his SO. Now there was nothing flagrant in their actions, know them both very well, but it is obvious they are partners. They weren't denied service, but totally ignored, no one would look at them or check out their purchases.

He said fine, they will lose his business. He went elsewhere. His take on the bakery blowup, they could take a lesson from the halal market.


----------



## Cornhusker

Paumon said:


> No, it's not fair. It's not fair to me and it's not fair to the bigot either to be forced to do business with me. Neither one of us wishes to do business with each other but we are BOTH enemies being forced to do so by an outside agency who is also our enemy. But remember here you are now talking about an imagined made up situation and so I'll take the imagining a bit further. Since we both do not wish to support each other we will both take the attitude that the enemy of my enemy is my friend so we will join forces and turn against the oppressive outside agency that is the enemy forcing both of us to deal with each other. In the long run all three of us will destroy each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are absolutely times when we should all have the discretion to restrict our speech and keep our opinions to ourselves for the sake of the peace of all. I believe it's called diplomacy. Something that seems to be lacking in bigots.


Why is it ok for you to impose your bigotry on others and demand that everyone who doesn't agree with you just shut up


----------



## homstdr74

Cornhusker said:


> Why is it ok for you to impose your bigotry on others and demand that everyone who doesn't agree with you just shut up


My parents never had that position when they told me that the one thing to learn about society was to NEVER talk about religion, politics, or sex. 

I don't believe that they would have taken kindly to me if I had smart-mouthed them about "just because you don't agree with me you demand that I shut up". 

Maybe somewhere along the way that good common sense was lost, and just maybe it's going to wind up being a lot bigger tragedy than any of us can possibly imagine at present.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think that is also probably one of the reasons the founding fathers deliberately left religion OUT of the game when they set up the rules of the game.


Hmmmm.....I always thought that the rules of the game BEGAN with that premise, that government is to stay the H *away* from all things religion. Once again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *free exercise* thereof;...."


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> No, it's not fair. It's not fair to me and it's not fair to the bigot either to be forced to do business with me. Neither one of us wishes to do business with each other but we are BOTH enemies being forced to do so by an outside agency who is also our enemy. But remember here you are now talking about an imagined made up situation and so I'll take the imagining a bit further. Since we both do not wish to support each other we will both take the attitude that the enemy of my enemy is my friend so we will join forces and turn against the oppressive outside agency that is the enemy forcing both of us to deal with each other. In the long run all three of us will destroy each other.


I grew up in a racist area and I can tell you many bigots have no problem taking money from those they hate and using it to try to rid themselves of those people. 

Lets say you were black and you are being black and being forced by the government to buy from someone who is going to use your money to buy himself new white sheets to make a new "glory suit" to wear when he comes to your house to "light a cross" in your yard. Would that change your opinion of being forced to buy from someone who doesn't like you?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is correct... all laws must conform to the limits placed upon the various lower governments by the US Constitution. Our constitution is designed to protect everyone's basic rights as much as is realistically possible. Discrimination based upon religion or race are both disallowed in the interest of protecting every ones rights. Discriminating due to lack of funds... quite another story. If a feller has the price of admission... he has the right to see the elephants roller skating just like anyone else.


Can you show me where in the USC it says that an individual can not discriminate against anyone he wants? 

To me there is nothing more basic than the freedom to think what you want and to be able to live your private life based on those thoughts.


----------



## gjensen

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think that is also probably one of the reasons the founding fathers deliberately left religion OUT of the game when they set up the rules of the game.


 I am not debating you, or being argumentative. 

But . . . . that is where WE get it wrong. They never tried to keep religion out of government. If we look, the evidence is everywhere. It is written on our dollar bills, and coins, in our Constitution etc. 

Their intention was to keep government out of religion. 

Separation of church and State was to keep the State in check, not religion in check. 

We all know that not all of the founding fathers were Christians. Most were, but not all. Still, the ones that were not, were largely influenced by Christian ideals. 

It is kind of one of them like it or not things. 

The very idea that men were free and equal BEFORE GOD was a Christian ideal, and rooted in the reformation. Any authentic study of the reformation will lead us to a growing belief that a government did not have divine authority, and that man was only subject to God. Not a Church, and not a King. God alone. 

We would not even be discussing losing our rights, or this new view of fairness, if not for Christian ideology. This whole equal rights thing and concept of fairness is rooted in Christian ideals. Where in history was it present before? 

Christian thought led to the movement to abolish slavery. As individuals began to be able to read their bibles, their conscience appealed to them, and it became clear just how ugly slavery was. 
This idea took root in America, but was well advanced in England etc. well before and abolished there first. 

The very men that led the effort to get slavery abolished were Christians. Everyone has heard the song Amazing Grace written by John Newton. A former slave trader. having been converted, saw the error. He became a leader in the movement to get England out of the business. He had been a trader himself prior. This movement among Christians spread and gained momentum in America.

Our system of Medicine was began by Christians. Wherever the gospel went hospitals were built. Anyone can look into who started their first hospitals in their area. It is not hard to find out. 
Our education system is rooted in Christian ideals. Anybody heard of Daniel Webster? 
Look at Africa. Where the missionaries go, so do the doctors and books. The church has done more in Africa than our government has. 

The government did not come up with these ideas. They jumped on the bandwagon. 

Until recently, the government never tried to restrain religion. Our government has no place in religion. That does not mean that religion has no place in the government.


----------



## watcher

Harry Chickpea said:


> You are playing. Here is one back atcha. If I bought a cake from you, saying it was for a party, and then used it at a satanic gay pedophile wedding, would you be participating? OR, if I bought a wedding cake from you SAYING it was for that purpose, and then gave it to starving kids to eat, would you have done an evil deed by selling the cake?


Yes to the first and no the the second. KNOWINGLY making a cake which allows you to celebrate something which is against my beliefs is completely different than unknowingly doing so. 




Harry Chickpea said:


> How about if the cake was MADE by a gay couple in your employ for use in a religiously pure ceremony? Would the cake be evil?


The cake is not evil. I don't live under the old law which classified things as "good" or "evil" or "clean" or "unclean". The "evil" in that would be by taking the cake from the couple it could be seen as me showing I support their choice. Buying a cake from them would be directly support them and their choice.

There are companies I will not buy products from because the owner's political stances. Everyone here, and most other people in the US, would have no problem with this. But if I were to say I was not buying a product from a business because of the owner's "life style" stances a lot of those same people would be up in arms.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> If the Albanian justifies racism using that religious belief as the basis, it has a lot to do with it.


So you think you as an individual should be forced to act as the government tells you to?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats a good way to lose a store.... depending upon your reasoning behind tossing someone out. If you toss them out for being obnoxious, disrupting business, or becoming violent those are pretty good reasons... tossing someone out for being Jewish, handicapped, or several other reasons... I suggest you lawyer up before you toss em to the street.


Why? If he hates Jews, the handicapped or people 6' tall why should he not have the right to tell them he will not sell to them? Its his store not the government's.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is quite possible that the good governor read her copy of our US Constitution.
> 
> Fourteenth amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. *No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.
> 
> bolding mine


You do see that little word in there don't you? That word "state". How is a law which says you, as an individual, can not be force by the state, via the courts, to violate your religious beliefs not fully supporting the 1st and 14th amendments?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> very good, I think we are pretty much on the same page here. The problem I had with this bill was that it would allow people to discriminate against some of our fellow americans just because they wanted to.


What other freedoms do you think the government should take from you?


----------



## MDKatie

beowoulf90 said:


> Sorry I don't accept that! By you and others trying to force your beliefs on others, negates Freedom of religion. Yet in the same breath you will lie and say you support freedom of religion. You can't have both.


How to tell if your religious libery is being threatened, with 10 easy questions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html


----------



## MDKatie

Can someone explain to me how serving a gay person will affect the proprietor of the store? It's not contagious. So you don't agree with the lifestyle? Then don't participate. It's that simple. I don't understand how some people cannot see that gay people are human beings too... I'm an atheist and I patronize businesses who advertise their religion (you know the types of businesses that quote scripture on their business cards and such) because who cares if I don't happen to agree with them?! If I had a business, I wouldn't turn away people if they happened to have a different set of beliefs than I did. What is the big deal?


----------



## homstdr74

MDKatie said:


> How to tell if your religious libery is being threatened, with 10 easy questions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-e...ing-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html


Kinda typical Huffpost huffing. Most of the questions are, er, you might say--slanted? The Christian religion does not just take place inside a Church or inside one's head, altho' those are certainly the places where most Christians hide. Nay, Christianity IN ACTION is:

Christians tending to plague victims during the Black Plague when others ran from town.

Christians establishing hospitals and places of care when others would not.

Christians establishing schools, when others would not.

Christians establishing centers for distribution of food, when others would not.

Christians establishing gardens for the poor to tend, when others would not.

Christians have established orphanages, when others would not. 

Christians have worked to preserve the family, when it is obvious that others not only will not but seem determined to undermine it as much as possible.

Christians have cared for the elderly and disabled, when others obviously won't.

And many more things, too numerous for this site. It is, or should be, obvious that none of these things take place either in private or in Church. Yet the modern thrust is to put Christians "in their place" by telling them only to worship God in a building or in private? Who will take up the slack---the "entitled" mob?


----------



## paradox

MDKatie said:


> Can someone explain to me how serving a gay person will affect the proprietor of the store? It's not contagious. So you don't agree with the lifestyle? Then don't participate. It's that simple. I don't understand how some people cannot see that gay people are human beings too... I'm an atheist and I patronize businesses who advertise their religion (you know the types of businesses that quote scripture on their business cards and such) because who cares if I don't happen to agree with them?! If I had a business, I wouldn't turn away people if they happened to have a different set of beliefs than I did. What is the big deal?


It has been explained several times actually but I understand this thing is several pages long and it isn't easy to read through all of it. I will try to summarize some of the points made.

The bakery has no problem serving gay people. They will happily sell them any pastry, cup cake, or birthday cake they want at any time. The problem rises when they are asked to create a cake (or photograph, or rent their venue - which are other cases that have come up) for a gay wedding. The reason being that the CEREMONY itself is against our beliefs. We also could not provide services to someone having a satanic ceremony, a wiccan ceremony, or any other number of ceremonies that are against Christianity.

We absolutely see them as human and are to love and respect them as people. But we cannot support their lifestyle any more than we could support someone who steals things, or has affairs, or is having sex outside of marriage. There are a number of things that are sin, we all have sin in our lives. The idea is to love the sinner, but not support or condone the sin. We are to hold each other accountable for our sin. So when sin in our lives comes to light we are to encourage each other to deal with that sin and work to change it. If you find someone professing to be Christian but spouting hate for some particular kind of sinner, they have got their own issues to work out with God and I wish you wouldn't paint us all with that broad brush because it is truly not who most of us are. I have never actually met anyone I considered to be a true Christian that harbors that kind of hate. 

I hope that helps explain it a little. I get that it is a whole different mind set and folks sometimes have trouble understanding the depth of importance we give our beliefs because much of it seems silly to those who don't believe. 

If you would indulge me, I have asked a question several times that nobody on your side has answered. Let's set aside the argument of which one actually had a protected right in these scenarios and just go from the assumption that both did. If a situation occurs where it seems that someone's rights have to be encroached no matter which way you decide the matter; is it not prudent to choose the decision that poses the smallest encroachment of the two? 

In these cases I mentioned the gay couple has sued the business, caused them great financial hardship and has actually caused the business and families livelihoods to be lost. So in order to obey their God, they had to endure serious financial hardship that affects their families as a whole. 

If it had gone the other way and the gay couple had simply called the next baker, photographer, wedding venue in the phone book - what true hardship is there in that other than having their feelings hurt and being insulted that someone believes differently than them? 

And lastly why wouldn't they prefer to work with a business that is happy to participate in their special day?


----------



## painterswife

paradox said:


> It has been explained several times actually but I understand this thing is several pages long and it isn't easy to read through all of it. I will try to summarize some of the points made.
> 
> The bakery has no problem serving gay people. They will happily sell them any pastry, cup cake, or birthday cake they want at any time. The problem rises when they are asked to create a cake (or photograph, or rent their venue - which are other cases that have come up) for a gay wedding. The reason being that the CEREMONY itself is against our beliefs. We also could not provide services to someone having a satanic ceremony, a wiccan ceremony, or any other number of ceremonies that are against Christianity.
> 
> We absolutely see them as human and are to love and respect them as people. But we cannot support their lifestyle any more than we could support someone who steals things, or has affairs, or is having sex outside of marriage. There are a number of things that are sin, we all have sin in our lives. The idea is to love the sinner, but not support or condone the sin. We are to hold each other accountable for our sin. So when sin in our lives comes to light we are to encourage each other to deal with that sin and work to change it. If you find someone professing to be Christian but spouting hate for some particular kind of sinner, they have got their own issues to work out with God and I wish you wouldn't paint us all with that broad brush because it is truly not who most of us are. I have never actually met anyone I considered to be a true Christian that harbors that kind of hate.
> 
> I hope that helps explain it a little. I get that it is a whole different mind set and folks sometimes have trouble understanding the depth of importance we give our beliefs because much of it seems silly to those who don't believe.
> 
> If you would indulge me, I have asked a question several times that nobody on your side has answered. Let's set aside the argument of which one actually had a protected right in these scenarios and just go from the assumption that both did. If a situation occurs where it seems that someone's rights have to be encroached no matter which way you decide the matter; is it not prudent to choose the decision that poses the smallest encroachment of the two?
> 
> In these cases I mentioned the gay couple has sued the business, caused them great financial hardship and has actually caused the business and families livelihoods to be lost. So in order to obey their God, they had to endure serious financial hardship that affects their families as a whole.
> 
> If it had gone the other way and the gay couple had simply called the next baker, photographer, wedding venue in the phone book - what true hardship is there in that other than having their feelings hurt and being insulted that someone believes differently than them?
> 
> And lastly why wouldn't they prefer to work with a business that is happy to participate in their special day?


Does that baker ask every person making a purchase what it will be used for?


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Can someone explain to me how serving a gay person will affect the proprietor of the store? It's not contagious. So you don't agree with the lifestyle? Then don't participate. It's that simple. I don't understand how some people cannot see that gay people are human beings too... I'm an atheist and I patronize businesses who advertise their religion (you know the types of businesses that quote scripture on their business cards and such) because who cares if I don't happen to agree with them?! If I had a business, I wouldn't turn away people if they happened to have a different set of beliefs than I did. What is the big deal?


The big deal is the government forcing an individual to do something in his private business which against his beliefs.

If you think its ok for the government to have the power to force you to sell your house to someone does it not also have the power to force you to NOT sell it to someone? What if we continue the slide into fascism and the government rules your kind is undesirable therefore private businesses must not sell to you?


----------



## joebill

MDKatie said:


> Can someone explain to me how serving a gay person will affect the proprietor of the store? It's not contagious. So you don't agree with the lifestyle? Then don't participate. It's that simple. I don't understand how some people cannot see that gay people are human beings too... I'm an atheist and I patronize businesses who advertise their religion (you know the types of businesses that quote scripture on their business cards and such) because who cares if I don't happen to agree with them?! If I had a business, I wouldn't turn away people if they happened to have a different set of beliefs than I did. What is the big deal?


If you had a business, as an atheist and let's say, a baker, would you, upon request, bow your head with the bride and groom and utter a prayer over the newly baked wedding cake, seeking the blessings of God on all who consumed it? Probably not, because that would be a demand that you violate your personal beliefs. Knowing your personal beliefs, to demand that of you would be offensive, rude, wrong.

I know of no case in Arizona where any gays are being harmed through discrimination. They have higher than average income, lower unemployment, can live anywhere they can afford to, are specifically singled out as a protected species that nobody can be mean to or speak rudely about without being subjected to the full weight of the law.

Generally speaking, they have more rights than those who practice traditional Christianity, but that will not suffice. They aparently feel that it is the Christians' turn to be driven into the closet.

You can come up with whatever name for it you want for the urge, but what is apparent is that militant gays (which certainly does not include all of them) have a burning desire to make folks do things that they do not want to do, and especially Christians.

In my humble opinion, this will NOT make the country a better place for them to live......Joe


----------



## paradox

painterswife said:


> Does that baker ask every person making a purchase what it will be used for?


This is another question that came up several times. No, they do not ask anyone what the item is for.

But in the case of a wedding cake where they want a specific cake topper of a same sex couple it becomes obvious. If someone just walked in and ordered a cake with no topper, and the baker had no idea it was for a same sex wedding, there would be no problem at all. 

And again, they could knowingly bake a birthday cake for a gay person, or sell them anything they wanted at any time. (and I think I read somewhere that they had). They simply felt they could not support the wedding ceremony itself by baking the cake for it.


----------



## painterswife

paradox said:


> This is another question that came up several times. No, they do not ask anyone what the item is for.
> 
> But in the case of a wedding cake where they want a specific cake topper of a same sex couple it becomes obvious. If someone just walked in and ordered a cake with no topper, and the baker had no idea it was for a same sex wedding, there would be no problem at all.
> 
> And again, they could knowingly bake a birthday cake for a gay person, or sell them anything they wanted at any time. (and I think I read somewhere that they had). They simply felt they could not support the wedding ceremony itself by baking the cake for it.


That does not fly with me. Either you don't want to be part of any ceremony that is against your religion and you ask everyone or you don't ask anyone. I would be more than fine if they are asking everyone but if they don't follow through with their convictions on everything then I am not okay with it.

PS. I think they would win in the courts if they could prove that they did ask everyone.


----------



## Oggie

I appreciate the comedy of this. 

Seven pages of gyrations about a poorly written Arizona law to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

And some of the folks that claim personal freedom should be protected in the absolute want to draw us back to the Constitution, whose authors weren't all that keen on protecting personal freedom themselves.

Anytime two or more people exist together, someone is going to give up "personal freedoms."


----------



## paradox

painterswife said:


> That does not fly with me. Either you don't want to be part of any ceremony that is against your religion and you ask everyone or you don't ask anyone. I would be more than fine if they are asking everyone but if they don't follow through with their convictions on everything then I am not okay with it.


If I read that right, you are saying they can't truly be religious because they don't quiz every client as to the use of the item they are buying before ringing it up?

So what you are saying is that I can't claim to be religious or to hold my beliefs seriously if I don't examine to the nth degree every item that passes through my hands either from or to another person? That I cannot do any kind of service or favor for another person until I drill them about what it will be used for? If I give someone a camera for a gift I must first make them swear they will never use it to take pictures that would be lustful in nature? If I were to hand someone a pen I must first make them swear they will not use it to write God's name in vain? That would surely cause all kinds of uproar if I were to insist you detail for me every possible thing you might use an item for. I can just hear the responses that would likely draw now, and most of them can't be printed on this site.

Surely you can see that there is no way to go through life avoiding accidentally supporting something against one's beliefs? Heck it is hard enough avoiding doing something that intentionally violates your beliefs - it is a battle we fight and lose pretty much daily. We all just try to do the best we can. I think what you are suggesting is just an impossible standard. Thankfully it isn't one God has held us to, and He is the only one I have to be concerned about what might or might not fly with Him.


----------



## painterswife

paradox said:


> If I read that right, you are saying they can't truly be religious because they don't quiz every client as to the use of the item they are buying before ringing it up?
> 
> So what you are saying is that I can't claim to be religious or to hold my beliefs seriously if I don't examine to the nth degree every item that passes through my hands either from or to another person? That I cannot do any kind of service or favor for another person until I drill them about what it will be used for? If I give someone a camera for a gift I must first make them swear they will never use it to take pictures that would be lustful in nature? If I were to hand someone a pen I must first make them swear they will not use it to write God's name in vain? That would surely cause all kinds of uproar if I were to insist you detail for me every possible thing you might use an item for. I can just hear the responses that would likely draw now, and most of them can't be printed on this site.
> 
> Surely you can see that there is no way to go through life avoiding accidentally supporting something against one's beliefs? Heck it is hard enough avoiding doing something that intentionally violates your beliefs - it is a battle we fight and lose pretty much daily. We all just try to do the best we can. I think what you are suggesting is just an impossible standard. Thankfully it isn't one God has held us to, and He is the only one I have to be concerned about what might or might not fly with Him.


No this is not about religious or not religious. It is about living to a code and not just when it is convenient to you.

For example, my mother ran a business and she never ever let a child purchase anything without saying please and thank-you. Her employees also had to do the same. You make a decision and you stick to it not just some of the time. I do expect if you don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple then you must ask every customer that question and not just leave it up to chance.


----------



## joebill

Oggie said:


> I appreciate the comedy of this.
> 
> Seven pages of gyrations about a poorly written Arizona law to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
> 
> And some of the folks that claim personal freedom should be protected in the absolute want to draw us back to the Constitution, whose authors weren't all that keen on protecting personal freedom themselves.
> 
> Anytime two or more people exist together, someone is going to give up "personal freedoms."


Giving up personal freedoms is common everywhere. It's called good manners. Having others TAKE our personal freedoms at the point of government's gun and letting it happen is called bad judgement. Government is never satisfied, and neither are those who use it against others as a weapon.

if you think it's silly to refuse to bake the cake, how bloody silly is it to sue somebody over not wanting to bake a cake? Think about it......Joe


----------



## Evons hubby

paradox said:


> So the first bold part does not apply to the business owner who has a right to freely practice their religion, but only to the person who is too lazy to simply call another bakery or photographer who would gladly serve them?
> 
> This isn't meant to be snarky I am honestly trying to get a handle on your position, because when I read that, what stands out to me is that the greater encroachment on rights is happening to the person who is being sued and having their livelihood destroyed.


The owner of the bakery is not being denied anything other than a self imposed right to make a profit if they refuse to sell a product they have placed on the market to sell. I doubt any bakery is going to fold up shop over the loss of sale of a cake they themselves refused to sell. I know of no religeon that believes it is wrong or immoral to do business with folks who do not share their faith.


----------



## Oggie

joebill said:


> Giving up personal freedoms is common everywhere. It's called good manners. Having others TAKE our personal freedoms at the point of government's gun and letting it happen is called bad judgement. Government is never satisfied, and neither are those who use it against others as a weapon.
> 
> if you think it's silly to refuse to bake the cake, how bloody silly is it to sue somebody over not wanting to bake a cake? Think about it......Joe


Show me where that happened in Arizona.

This poorly written law singled out gays to solve a "problem" that didn't exist.

It didn't say folks are free to deny service to anyone else that they chose because to provide that service would go against their religious convictions.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> Hmmmm.....I always thought that the rules of the game BEGAN with that premise, that government is to stay the H *away* from all things religion. Once again:
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *free exercise* thereof;...."


Exactly


----------



## paradox

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The owner of the bakery is not being denied anything other than a self imposed right to make a profit if they refuse to sell a product they have placed on the market to sell. I doubt any bakery is going to fold up shop over the loss of sale of a cake they themselves refused to sell.


And if that were the case there would be no problem either. If I willingly forgo a sale then no harm done. Problem is that they were then sued. With that came massive legal fees, then ruled against which brought fines and fees. So there was more harm done than just the profit of an item they themselves chose not to sell. I have said many times if the couple had simply walked out and called another bakery then everyone comes out ok other than some hurt feelings.

That is what the law was trying to prevent was the ability to sue over this situation and turn it into a giant financially devastating circus because somebody got their feelings hurt.

[/QUOTE]I know of no religeon that believes it is wrong or immoral to do business with folks who do not share their faith.[/QUOTE]

I don't either. And this has also been said quite a few times but I guess folks are either not seeing it or not understanding the difference. I am not sure which. There are certain lines in religions (different for all religions obviously) that you simply are not supposed to cross.

I could walk into a Kosher deli and they have no problems serving me. But they can't serve me ham as that would violate their religion. Should I sue them and drive them out of business because I really want a ham sandwich? Or should I maybe just go to the deli down the street that does serve it?

The bakers can and had done business with folks who didn't share their faith all the time. That is not a problem. The problem comes in when they are asked to make something for a ceremony that is against their faith. Just as they would not cater a wiccaan festival or any other kind of ceremony that violated their beliefs. Doing business with the person for any other purpose is not a problem at all. But being involved in and facilitating a specific ceremony was the line for them.

I am not trying to convince anyone that is a line they have to draw for themselves, I am only explaining the belief system as it is for the people who have been sued in these cases. The point is the state is trying to force them to go against their religion as they understand it.

Whether or not anyone agrees with their religion is not up for debate. That is between them and God alone. The state or the public does not get to rewrite their religion to suit its purposes.

I think the only exception to this under our Constitution would be if their religion dictated that they kill the person who did not share their faith, that would be different because the other person has an inalienable right to not be killed. There is no inalienable right to buy a cake or to not be offended by someone.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> What other freedoms do you think the government should take from you?


There are several that come to mind... lynchings... beatings... rape.... murder.... robbery... incest... etc.


----------



## Evons hubby

paradox said:


> And if that were the case there would be no problem either. If I willingly forgo a sale then no harm done. Problem is that they were then sued. With that came massive legal fees, then ruled against which brought fines and fees. So there was more harm done than just the profit of an item they themselves chose not to sell. I have said many times if the couple had simply walked out and called another bakery then everyone comes out ok other than some hurt feelings.
> 
> That is what the law was trying to prevent was the ability to sue over this situation and turn it into a giant financially devastating circus because somebody got their feelings hurt.


I know of no religeon that believes it is wrong or immoral to do business with folks who do not share their faith.[/QUOTE]

I don't either. And this has also been said quite a few times but I guess folks are either not seeing it or not understanding the difference. I am not sure which. 

They can and had done business with folks who didn't share their faith all the time. That is not a problem. The problem comes in when they are asked to make something for a ceremony that is against their faith. Just as they would not cater a wiccaan festival or any other kind of ceremony that violated their beliefs. Doing business with the person for any other purpose is not a problem at all. But being involved in and facilitating a specific ceremony is a different situation. 

I am not trying to convince anyone that is a line they have to draw for themselves, I am only explaining the belief system as it is for the people who have been sued in these cases. The point is the state is trying to force them to go against their religion as they understand it.

Whether or not anyone agrees with their religion is not up for debate. That is between them and God alone. The state or the public does not get to rewrite their religion to suit its purposes.

I think the only exception to this under our Constitution would be if their religion dictated that they kill the person who did not share their faith, that would be different because the other person has an inalienable right to not be killed. There is no inalienable right to buy a cake or to not be offended by someone.[/QUOTE]

I would be quite upset if a bakery refused to sell me the same product they sell to basically every one else based solely on the fact that I went to a different church than the baker. I should be able to purchase that cake just the same as anyone else in my community. I am quite sure plenty of other folks have bought those cakes who did not happen to with be a member of the bakers church. Now that being said, if the baker does not want to come to my BBQ and enjoy the festivities... that entirety up to him. I would also note that if I were co posting nfronted with this issue I am not one to jump into a court room... I would resolve said problem in a bit more personal and direct fashion. 

Wow!! Trying to post from this android box really messes things up!!


----------



## painterswife

paradox said:


> And if that were the case there would be no problem either. If I willingly forgo a sale then no harm done. Problem is that they were then sued. With that came massive legal fees, then ruled against which brought fines and fees. So there was more harm done than just the profit of an item they themselves chose not to sell. I have said many times if the couple had simply walked out and called another bakery then everyone comes out ok other than some hurt feelings.
> 
> That is what the law was trying to prevent was the ability to sue over this situation and turn it into a giant financially devastating circus because somebody got their feelings hurt.


I know of no religeon that believes it is wrong or immoral to do business with folks who do not share their faith.[/QUOTE]

I don't either. And this has also been said quite a few times but I guess folks are either not seeing it or not understanding the difference. I am not sure which. There are certain lines in religions (different for all religions obviously) that you simply are not supposed to cross.

I could walk into a Kosher deli and they have no problems serving me. But they can't serve me ham as that would violate their religion. Should I sue them and drive them out of business because I really want a ham sandwich? Or should I maybe just go to the deli down the street that does serve it?

The bakers can and had done business with folks who didn't share their faith all the time. That is not a problem. The problem comes in when they are asked to make something for a ceremony that is against their faith. Just as they would not cater a wiccaan festival or any other kind of ceremony that violated their beliefs. Doing business with the person for any other purpose is not a problem at all. But being involved in and facilitating a specific ceremony was the line for them.

I am not trying to convince anyone that is a line they have to draw for themselves, I am only explaining the belief system as it is for the people who have been sued in these cases. The point is the state is trying to force them to go against their religion as they understand it.

Whether or not anyone agrees with their religion is not up for debate. That is between them and God alone. The state or the public does not get to rewrite their religion to suit its purposes.

I think the only exception to this under our Constitution would be if their religion dictated that they kill the person who did not share their faith, that would be different because the other person has an inalienable right to not be killed. There is no inalienable right to buy a cake or to not be offended by someone.[/QUOTE]

*I guess that means that as long as they don't know what the item or product they are selling is being used for they should have no problem selling it.

They should then have no problem putting up a sign saying "Don't tell me who this wedding cake is for because I can't sell it to you if I don't agree with what it is celebrating"

Problem solved. We don't need a law, they just need to have a policy and make sure they verify that they are asking every single person. if they will be using the product in a way that is against the sellers religion.*


----------



## emdeengee

homstdr74 said:


> Kinda typical Huffpost huffing. Most of the questions are, er, you might say--slanted? The Christian religion does not just take place inside a Church or inside one's head, altho' those are certainly the places where most Christians hide. Nay, Christianity IN ACTION is:
> 
> Christians tending to plague victims during the Black Plague when others ran from town.
> 
> Christians establishing hospitals and places of care when others would not.
> 
> Christians establishing schools, when others would not.
> 
> Christians establishing centers for distribution of food, when others would not.
> 
> Christians establishing gardens for the poor to tend, when others would not.
> 
> Christians have established orphanages, when others would not.
> 
> Christians have worked to preserve the family, when it is obvious that others not only will not but seem determined to undermine it as much as possible.
> 
> Christians have cared for the elderly and disabled, when others obviously won't.
> 
> And many more things, too numerous for this site. It is, or should be, obvious that none of these things take place either in private or in Church. Yet the modern thrust is to put Christians "in their place" by telling them only to worship God in a building or in private? Who will take up the slack---the "entitled" mob?


This description of Christianity in action also applies to Muslims and Jews in action since all of the things established by Christians were also established by Muslim and Jews and often centuries ahead of the Christian counterpart. Hospitals and medicine and education was far advanced in the Orient and Middle East. As for the moral courage to care for the sick - The Black Death plague started in the Orient and first spread to the middle east before entering Europe. The people living there did not flee the town leaving their people to die. They behaved in the same way as the Christians did. Some stayed to help, some left to try and save their lives.


----------



## Paumon

> There are "gay clubs" that can exclude straight people from entry, but not the other way around.


I wonder how they determine who is gay and who is straight.


----------



## Paumon

> So the Governor ...... vetoed the bill. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/26/arizona-governor-vetoes-controversial-religious-rights-bill/


Okay, I know this bill has been vetoed but I'm still curious about something which wasn't specified in the article. It says:



> Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Wednesday she has vetoed a controversial bill that would have allowed religious beliefs as a defense for denying service to gays and others.
> 
> ...... The Arizona Legislature passed the bill last week allowing businesses whose owners cite sincerely held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and others. It allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination.


Who are the unspecified others? 

How would one find a copy of the vetoed bill to find out who the others are?


----------



## 7thswan

Paumon said:


> Okay, I know this bill has been vetoed but I'm still curious about something which wasn't specified in the article. It says:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the unspecified others?
> 
> How would one find a copy of the vetoed bill to find out who the others are?


The bill is: sb 1062 Arizona. If you would like to look it up.


----------



## homstdr74

emdeengee said:


> This description of Christianity in action also applies to Muslims and Jews in action since all of the things established by Christians were also established by Muslim and Jews and often centuries ahead of the Christian counterpart. Hospitals and medicine and education was far advanced in the Orient and Middle East. As for the moral courage to care for the sick - The Black Death plague started in the Orient and first spread to the middle east before entering Europe. The people living there did not flee the town leaving their people to die. They behaved in the same way as the Christians did. Some stayed to help, some left to try and save their lives.


Always with the negative. If I were to say that the sun shone every day, negativists would "scientifically" prove me wrong.


----------



## Paumon

Thanks 7thSwan. 

So I looked it up and I didn't find the bill but I found the wikipedia write up about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062

Proponents said the bill was intended to protect the right of business owners to refuse services based on religious objections and critics said that the bill would have allowed any business to discriminate against any group of people for any religious reason. Apparently the above criticisms were the reason for why the bill was vetoed.

Interestingly enough:



> The bill is similar to bills in five other statesâSouth Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, Tennessee, Colorado, and Maineâthat all failed or faced major setbacks as of February 2014.[17][18][19][20] Similar bills were proposed in Georgia,[21] Ohio,[22] Missouri,[23] Oklahoma,[24] Hawaii,[25] Mississippi,[17] and a bill in Nevada has passed the state senate.[26] A state constitutional amendment was proposed in Pennsylvania,[27] one is being drafted in Utah,[28] and a ballot initiative along similar lines was started in Oregon.[29]


----------



## Paumon

homstdr74 said:


> Always with the negative. If I were to say that the sun shone every day, negativists would "scientifically" prove me wrong.


Ummm. What she said wasn't really a negative. It was the simple truth. What you said about the good things Christians did was the truth but you also stated in all cases that it was only Christians that did those good things. Now that is a falsehood designed to mislead away from the positives that other non-Christian people have done and make it seem like Christians are the only be all to end all good in the world, which simply is not the case. Maybe you actually want to believe that though, which you're entitled to do so, but it's not a good idea to try to mislead other people into believing the false things you want them to believe just because that's what you want to believe.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> Thanks 7thSwan.
> 
> So I looked it up and I didn't find the bill but I found the wikipedia write up about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062
> 
> Proponents said the bill was intended to protect the right of business owners to refuse services based on religious objections and critics said that the bill would have allowed any business to discriminate against any group of people for any religious reason. Apparently the above criticisms were the reason for why the bill was vetoed.
> 
> Interestingly enough:


I find this amazing... so many states attempting to pass laws that fly in the face of our constitution just so they can continue the bigotry of centuries past. When will we answer Rodney's question? "Why can't we all just get along?" It makes me sick to think that this is even up for discussion in my america!!


----------



## Paumon

Cornhusker said:


> Why is it ok for you to impose your bigotry on others and demand that everyone who doesn't agree with you just shut up


It is NOT okay for any bigot to impose their bigotry on others and demand that everyone who doesn't agree with them to just shut up. It is better for the bigots to keep their opinions to themselves for the sake of diplomacy and peace for all.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> I grew up in a racist area and I can tell you many bigots have no problem taking money from those they hate and using it to try to rid themselves of those people.
> 
> Lets say you were black and you are being black and being forced by the government to buy from someone who is going to use your money to buy himself new white sheets to make a new "glory suit" to wear when he comes to your house to "light a cross" in your yard. Would that change your opinion of being forced to buy from someone who doesn't like you?


Is this a verifiable incident that really happened where black people were forced by government to buy things from racists who abused them or is it an imaginary scenario that you are making up? If it is a real government enforced thing that actually happened then I'll be happy to express my opinion about it but if it's just an imaginary scenario that you're throwing out as a red herring then I think it's a waste of time to discuss it.


----------



## Spinner

emdeengee said:


> ... And what next? A Christian fireman refusing to put out a fire at the home of a gay person or a Jewish paramedic refusing to treat a woman victim? Thin end of the wedge.


IF it was a private fire dept. then yes, they would have the right to refuse to put out the fire. The fire company that services my area is private and they will not put out any fire unless you are a member. I can choose to buy a membership in the private fire dept or call the public fire dept and wait for them to travel 40 miles to get here. The public fire dept has no choice, they have to respond (but my home would be ashes by the time they got here.)


----------



## Peggy

This whole country is sick!!!!!


----------



## Evons hubby

Peggy said:


> This whole country is sick!!!!!


Not really.... there are some mighty fine citizens among us.... some are christians, others are of a wide variety of faiths..... the truly sick are those who believe they are superior to the rest of us.


----------



## notwyse

So I know I am late to the party....but just want to say that Governor Brewer did a pretty smart thing. Remember this is Arizona. Land of many potential divisions. We hardly need another. It is business as usual here without another law. We should all be glad.


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> Ummm. What she said wasn't really a negative. It was the simple truth. What you said about the good things Christians did was the truth but you also stated in all cases that it was only Christians that did those good things. Now that is a falsehood designed to mislead away from the positives that other non-Christian people have done and make it seem like Christians are the only be all to end all good in the world, which simply is not the case. Maybe you actually want to believe that though, which you're entitled to do so, but it's not a good idea to try to mislead other people into believing the false things you want them to believe just because that's what you want to believe.


Nope, it was a negative. Those who want to be offended will always find a way to be offended, and they will always find an enabler willing to attempt to overshadow Christian history with anecdotes of their own.

The Arizona bill was to better defend the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. It was deliberately mischaracterized as some sort of perverted sexual preference bill, which it was not nor could ever have been. I donât know exactly why it was mischaracterized, but being old-fashioned I would state that has to do with destroying our Constitutional rights. I wonât tolerate that---I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Because of this I no longer care what positives, if any, any muslims did at any time in the past. I only see the twin towers falling and people falling from the sky when I think or hear the word muslims. 

I wasnât trying to âmisleadâ anyone. If people donât know exact phases of world history, they should study more. If we are to be held to a different standard than anyone else simply because we defend Christianity, maybe those who do so should put their concept of âdemocracyâ under a more powerful microscope.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> It is NOT okay for any bigot to impose their bigotry on others and demand that everyone who doesn't agree with them to just shut up. *It is better for the bigots to keep their opinions to themselves* for the sake of diplomacy and peace for all.


Why can't you follow your own advice? :hand:


----------



## beowoulf90

MDKatie said:


> Can someone explain to me how serving a gay person will affect the proprietor of the store? It's not contagious. So you don't agree with the lifestyle? Then don't participate. It's that simple. I don't understand how some people cannot see that gay people are human beings too... I'm an atheist and I patronize businesses who advertise their religion (you know the types of businesses that quote scripture on their business cards and such) because who cares if I don't happen to agree with them?! If I had a business, I wouldn't turn away people if they happened to have a different set of beliefs than I did. What is the big deal?


So lets say you have a Jewish tattoo artist (yes I really do) and he has a neo-nazi kid come in and want a swastika and other nazi icons tattooed on himself, Do you as the Jewish tattoo artist do it?

I say no way in hades would I do it.. But now that tattooer has to do it because he has lost his freedom of religion. You ask how, because he has to cater to those who violate his religious tenets. 
Does a devote Catholic doctor have to perform an abortion? Yes by not allowing the doctor to say no because of his religion You the government have violated his Right to Freedom of religion. Let me guess you say that will never happen.. Well I say that it will, simply because if the government can force a baker to make a wedding cake with Jim and John on it, then they can easily force a doctor to perform an abortion. My question is why didn't Jim and John go to a different bakery? If I go to a business and they don't want to serve me, I leave and go to a different business and spend my money there (and this has happened to me before).. So what was the true agenda of Jim and John? From my Pagan viewpoint it was to destroy a business that they knew they would not be able to force into accepting their(Jim and John's & the Government) beliefs. Thus they violate the Freedom of religion of the shop owner. I also believe that this bakery was targeted because they were of the Christian faith and that alone is reason to despise the actions of these militant gays and their Government backing..

Gays, Straights, red, white, green blue, black etc have no right to force their religious beliefs on others. They have no right to tell others how to run their business's. By the same token I have no right to tell them what to believe or how to run their business.

But it seems that gays (in this case) think they are above the law and better than everyone else.. So much so that they need special privileges.

So tell me why I as an individual have to accept beliefs of others?
It has already been suggested that the communist left (ie dems and progressives) is thinking of forcing churches to marry gays, no matter what the church's religion is..


Sorry that isn't Freedom of Religion in any way shape or form. 

Don't think it will happen?
I will beg to differ, just ask the IRS why they are targeting conservative groups, individuals..
Even ole harry "I'm an idiot" Reid lied the other day on the Floor of the Senate. He stated that the evil Koch brothers were anti American because the donate so much money to political groups. Yet if you look at the facts they are 59th on the list of political donors. It seems that the top ten political donors are all left wing /communist pacs..


----------



## mmoetc

Once again, he can refuse to do a swastika or anything else he finds offensive as long as he refuses to do it in every instance. That is not discriminatory. What he cannot do is give Bill a swastika and not give one to Bob because he supposedly objects on religous grounds. It is about consistency and equal access. If a gay couple comes in and wants to buy the raspberry filled, buttercream rose decorated cake you are famous for and produce every week for marriages between anyone else, regardless of whether their behavior has met your religous tests, and refuse their business solely because they are gay you are guilty of illegal discrimination in my opinion.


----------



## joebill

It strikes me often in these cases that folks feel quite safe putting it to Christians simply because they ARE Christians. The gays who force them to bake wedding cakes will feel quite safe in eating them, for that reason.

Anybody but a Christian, forced to do work that went against his priciples, would simply toss a couple of packages of ex-lax into the mix like a certain lady I know has done with brownies from time to time.

Sooner or later somebody is going to get his honeymoon messed up.....Joe


----------



## dixiegal62

joebill said:


> It strikes me often in these cases that folks feel quite safe putting it to Christians simply because they ARE Christians. The gays who force them to bake wedding cakes will feel quite safe in eating them, for that reason.
> 
> Anybody but a Christian, forced to do work that went against his priciples, would simply toss a couple of packages of ex-lax into the mix like a certain lady I know has done with brownies from time to time.
> 
> Sooner or later somebody is going to get his honeymoon messed up.....Joe


You bring up a good point. It's the same reason I never send back an order when eating in a restaurant, I wait until the meal is over and if I had a problem with my order I ask for a discount. Not about to risk what some disgruntled cook might do to my food.


----------



## painterswife

joebill said:


> It strikes me often in these cases that folks feel quite safe putting it to Christians simply because they ARE Christians. The gays who force them to bake wedding cakes will feel quite safe in eating them, for that reason.
> 
> Anybody but a Christian, forced to do work that went against his priciples, would simply toss a couple of packages of ex-lax into the mix like a certain lady I know has done with brownies from time to time.
> 
> Sooner or later somebody is going to get his honeymoon messed up.....Joe


So you speak for every Christian. You know that it is only non Christians that do wrong. 

I know people of every faith and religion that hold themselves to high standards and would not do as you suggest. I also know Christians that would. That does not really matter to those who think it is only Christians that are the only ones that are being persecuted.


----------



## joebill

No, Maam, I do not speak for anybody but myself, and I try to avoid, at all costs, the liberal habit of putting words in the mouths of others that they would never speak themselves.

It's a childish, irritating, transparent habbit that destroys the credibiliity of those who pursue it over and over again as the rebuttal to nearly every argument. Moreover, it is dishonest.....Joe


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> Is this a verifiable incident that really happened where black people were forced by government to buy things from racists who abused them or is it an imaginary scenario that you are making up? If it is a real government enforced thing that actually happened then I'll be happy to express my opinion about it but if it's just an imaginary scenario that you're throwing out as a red herring then I think it's a waste of time to discuss it.


I guess if you take away the racial angle, you have Obamacare.....joe


----------



## mmoetc

joebill said:


> It strikes me often in these cases that folks feel quite safe putting it to Christians simply because they ARE Christians. The gays who force them to bake wedding cakes will feel quite safe in eating them, for that reason.
> 
> Anybody but a Christian, forced to do work that went against his priciples, would simply toss a couple of packages of ex-lax into the mix like a certain lady I know has done with brownies from time to time.
> 
> Sooner or later somebody is going to get his honeymoon messed up.....Joe


Or maybe they complain because they dislike being denied the best cake in town for seemingly arbitrary reasons.


----------



## painterswife

joebill said:


> No, Maam, I do not speak for anybody but myself, and I try to avoid, at all costs, the liberal habit of putting words in the mouths of others that they would never speak themselves.
> 
> It's a childish, irritating, transparent habbit that destroys the credibiliity of those who pursue it over and over again as the rebuttal to nearly every argument. Moreover, it is dishonest.....Joe


"It strikes me often in these cases that folks feel quite safe putting it to Christians simply because they ARE Christians. The gays who force them to bake wedding cakes will feel quite safe in eating them, for that reason."

Your post implies that you do.


----------



## gryndlgoat

All businesses have things called "menus" or "catalogs". If something is listed on that menu or in that catalog, then it must be available to anyone with the money to buy it and the seller is legally obliged to sell it. 

Asking for items that are not listed is a red herring (e.g., swastika tattoos in a Jewish tattoo shop, ham sandwiches in a Kosher deli, or even wedding cakes with two men as toppers in a Christian bakery) as these items are NOT OFFERED by the seller. The seller is under no obligation to create something not on the menu or not in their catalog. A customer has no right to demand it or sue, either (e.g., a roast beef sandwich at KFC).

But, if a plain wedding cake with no people on it is offered in the catalog (and in most cases, the little figures are optional), then it must be available to anyone with the money to purchase it.

Isn't it that simple?


----------



## Vash

gryndlgoat said:


> All businesses have things called "menus" or "catalogs". If something is listed on that menu or in that catalog, then it must be available to anyone with the money to buy it and the seller is legally obliged to sell it.
> 
> Asking for items that are not listed is a red herring (e.g., swastika tattoos in a Jewish tattoo shop, ham sandwiches in a Kosher deli, or even wedding cakes with two men as toppers in a Christian bakery) as these items are NOT OFFERED by the seller. The seller is under no obligation to create something not on the menu or not in their catalog. A customer has no right to demand it or sue, either (e.g., a roast beef sandwich at KFC).
> 
> But, if a plain wedding cake with no people on it is offered in the catalog (and in most cases, the little figures are optional), then it must be available to anyone with the money to purchase it.
> 
> Isn't it that simple?



And for those businesses that do "custom" work that is uncatalogued?


----------



## jacqueg

OK, so I've read this whole thread - and no one that I've read discussed the issue of how this bill would have actually worked.

How would anyone be able to tell for certain that the potential customer standing in front of them is gay? Plenty of gay men do not wear tutus and lisp, and plenty of gay women do not wear coveralls and swagger. Conversely, plenty of slender men who lisp and plenty of women who prefer wearing short hair and pants are straight. So how on earth could a business owner make a reliable determination? Leaving aside the issue of same-sex dolls on a wedding cake, or the photographer at a gay wedding, this bill could have opened a huge snarl. Because, as far as I know, while under this bill a business owner could use religious reasons for denying service as a defense against discrimination charges, it does not guarantee that religious refusal would be a *successful* defense. 

One argument against this bill is a slippery slope argument - that gay people would eventually be required to identify themselves as such in order to prevent such uncertainties. Obviously, the bill's authors/supporters did not intend any such thing, but those who defend this bill so vehemently might want to think about this for a moment. 

And of course no one mentions the people who swing either way, or the gay/straight marriages that we know do occur. If a person is known to engage in or even prefer same sex liaisons, but decides to marry a person of the opposite gender, could that baker still have grounds to refuse to bake a cake? Seems to me this bill would have made selling any services/goods a much more fraught transaction than it needs to be, not exactly a desirable result.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> And for those businesses that do "custom" work that is uncatalogued?


If your sign says "we do custom work for all occasions" that pretty much means ALL occasions. If it says "we cater high school graduation parties and barmitsfas....when the Muslim kids graduate high school you best be ready to cater.


----------



## MDKatie

paradox said:


> If you would indulge me, I have asked a question several times that nobody on your side has answered. Let's set aside the argument of which one actually had a protected right in these scenarios and just go from the assumption that both did. If a situation occurs where it seems that someone's rights have to be encroached no matter which way you decide the matter; is it not prudent to choose the decision that poses the smallest encroachment of the two?
> 
> In these cases I mentioned the gay couple has sued the business, caused them great financial hardship and has actually caused the business and families livelihoods to be lost. So in order to obey their God, they had to endure serious financial hardship that affects their families as a whole.
> 
> If it had gone the other way and the gay couple had simply called the next baker, photographer, wedding venue in the phone book - what true hardship is there in that other than having their feelings hurt and being insulted that someone believes differently than them?
> 
> And lastly why wouldn't they prefer to work with a business that is happy to participate in their special day?


If they have the money to buy the cake they want, the venue they want, etc, then they should be able to buy it. Someone (you? or someone else?) said it's our job to monitor the sins of others...uh, I may be an atheist, but I'm pretty sure it's your god's job, right? So why not leave it up to him? If Christians are supposed to love others, and treat others how they would want to be treated, then why take it into your own hands to police society on all sins? 

Just as easily as the couple could have found another baker, the baker they first chose could have just baked a cake and avoided the whole mess. I don't see how baking a cake has anything at all to do with gay marriage...it's just a CAKE. Baking a cake doesn't make you gay, it doesn't mean you're now married to another of the same sex, it doesn't mean you participated in the wedding ceremony, etc. It just means you mixed together ingredients and baked a cake. 



joebill said:


> If you had a business, as an atheist and let's say, a baker, would you, upon request, bow your head with the bride and groom and utter a prayer over the newly baked wedding cake, seeking the blessings of God on all who consumed it? Probably not, because that would be a demand that you violate your personal beliefs. Knowing your personal beliefs, to demand that of you would be offensive, rude, wrong.


If they asked me to speak the words of the prayer, I'd likely decline since I don't pray, but I don't see why they'd ask me if they knew I was an atheist. However, if they said the prayer and just asked me, as the baker, to hold hands or bow my head with them, I would. I often find myself in situations where people are praying as a group (heck, we even have to do that at our work potlucks, it seems), and I politely bow my head out of respect. It's not that hard to show respect to someone who has different beliefs than you.


----------



## Convoy

Well I believe in personal freedoms across all boards - but I also believe that people should not be `protected`from themselves. If someone becomes hurt or killed through their own stupidity it's simply a function of natural selection and betters the rest of us.


----------



## unregistered41671

MDKatie said:


> If they asked me to speak the words of the prayer, I'd likely decline since I don't pray, but I don't see why they'd ask me if they knew I was an atheist. However, if they said the prayer and just asked me, as the baker, to hold hands or bow my head with them, I would. I often find myself in situations where people are praying as a group (heck, we even have to do that at our work potlucks, it seems), and I politely bow my head out of respect. It's not that hard to show respect to someone who has different beliefs than you.


It would in my case, make a difference to me. I would not bow my head or pray to just anything, even out of respect. No telling what or to who some pray to. I would not expect anyone else to do so either.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find this amazing... so many states attempting to pass laws that fly in the face of our constitution just so they can continue the bigotry of centuries past. When will we answer Rodney's question? "Why can't we all just get along?" It makes me sick to think that this is even up for discussion in my america!!


Uh. . .excuse me, care to show me where the USC requires a individual citizen to sell his goods, services and/or labor to anyone who demands it?

If I don't like the fact you came into my store wearing white after labor day I should have the right to not sell you MY goods which are in MY store bought with MY money and put there and sold with MY labor.

The same should apply if the reason was because you didn't speak Farsi or are left handed. 

Also, if the government has the power to force you to sell to people even if you wish not to does it not also have the right to forbid you from selling to people?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> It is NOT okay for any bigot to impose their bigotry on others and demand that everyone who doesn't agree with them to just shut up. It is better for the bigots to keep their opinions to themselves for the sake of diplomacy and peace for all.


But do you agree that a bigot has the full right under the Constitution to be a bigot and to live his bigoted life in his private dealings (as opposed to in government actions)?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Is this a verifiable incident that really happened where black people were forced by government to buy things from racists who abused them or is it an imaginary scenario that you are making up? If it is a real government enforced thing that actually happened then I'll be happy to express my opinion about it but if it's just an imaginary scenario that you're throwing out as a red herring then I think it's a waste of time to discuss it.


Yes it was. Back in the days where there was real racism local (and even state) governments would set things up so blacks could not own businesses. This meant they had to buy from white businesses and in a lot of areas these businesses were owned by people where were Klan leaders. Remember back in the day in some areas you had to be a Klan member to even hope to get elected to political office.

But even if it wasn't what's the difference in you being forced to sell your goods to someone you "hate" and being forced to buy from someone which you either hate or hates you?

And I have to ask if the government has the power to force you to sell to a group of people does it not also have the power to force you NOT to sell to a group?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not really.... there are some mighty fine citizens among us.... some are christians, others are of a wide variety of faiths..... the truly sick are those who believe they are superior to the rest of us.


And its those "superior" ones who the government should step in and tell everyone how and what to think, as long as its what _they_ think.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> If they have the money to buy the cake they want, the venue they want, etc, then they should be able to buy it. Someone (you? or someone else?) said it's our job to monitor the sins of others...uh, I may be an atheist, but I'm pretty sure it's your god's job, right? So why not leave it up to him? If Christians are supposed to love others, and treat others how they would want to be treated, then why take it into your own hands to police society on all sins?


You might want to re-read the Bible. That stuff you have been told about how Christians are not to judge is based on one little part taken out of context.

But my post has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with personal freedom and the freedom to do with your goods and labor what you wish w/o the government interference.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> But do you agree that a bigot has the full right under the Constitution to be a bigot and to live his bigoted life in his private dealings (as opposed to in government actions)?


Yes and no. 

Yes - I think a bigot should be able to be a bigot and live his bigoted life in his private dealings. The qualifier being that it be in his private life so he harms nobody but himself, not in public where his bigotry can harm others. 

No - I don't think it should have to be a full constitutional right. I think to try to make something like that a constitutional right would be an abuse of the constitution and its purposes as a guideline for everyone. The constitution is supposed to be for everyone, isn't it? If bigots wanted a constitutional right to be bigots where would the line be drawn on other things that they demand should be constitutional rights for them alone but that may exclude others and deprive others of constitutional rights?


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> You might want to re-read the Bible. That stuff you have been told about how Christians are not to judge is based on one little part taken out of context.
> 
> But my post has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with personal freedom and the freedom to do with your goods and labor what you wish w/o the government interference.


Ok, so judge away if you want...be unkind to others if you want. And my post was responding to paradox. I even quoted him when replying...so it wasn't really about your post anyways.


----------



## MJsLady

There are ways to say no and not be mean, judgmental or rude.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> But do you agree that a bigot has the full right under the Constitution to be a bigot and to live his bigoted life in his private dealings (as opposed to in government actions)?



I'm interested in sitting back and reading some of the answers you get to that question, especially the honest ones.

The correct answer of course is "yes", but when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, there is a majority of the population who would say, feel or secretly say "No."
And it isn't exclusively the so-called liberal left, who if they were true to their principles, would defend individual liberty.
But the right side of the peanut gallery often chimes in with their 2 cents worth of opinion on how others should be legislated into thinking and acting the "right" way.:heh:

The solution to the dilemma that sparked this Arizona legislative sinkhole is obvious to me, and pointed out on the first page of this thread, I think.

I wouldn't say that rural Southerners are necessarily smarter than any others, but we have had the opportunity of finding ways around Federal interference on more than one occasion, so it's more a cultural thing.
When I first started visiting the place I live now as a young adult, this was still a "dry" county. When i say dry, I mean not a drop. 
If you think that means there weren't places that you could drink alcohol, you'd be wrong.
There was a variety of private clubs, exempt from any laws and whose membership was entirely up to the establishment. It was customary that only a member could sponsor a new member or have a guest admitted for the night.
So, if you weren't straight, white and local, chances are you drove your hay self to the next town or did without. Too bad, that's what I did for a long time until I got to know some folks.
So the easy solution is not to get a state issued license and be a private club, be it a cake club, coffee club, deli club or whatever. If I want you to be a member, fine. If not, seeya!


----------



## gweny

greg273 said:


> Don't blame, or hide behind God trying to justify bigotry. I'm pretty sure, in a book somewhere, in red text, is the words, something to the effect of 'As you do unto the least of them , you do unto me'.


Or...

"be ye kind one unto another, tender-hearted and forgiving one another; just as Christ has forgiven you"

Or

"judge not, lest ye be judged."

Or... Let's be honest, we could do this all day. The jist of it is the golden rule. If either party in this scenario had just treated the other the way they wanted to be treated.... Well, we wouldn't need lawyers or politicians! Imagine that! Lol


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> Paumon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT okay for any bigot to impose their bigotry on others and demand that everyone who doesn't agree with them to just shut up. *It is better for the bigots to keep their opinions to themselves* for the sake of diplomacy and peace for all.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you follow your own advice? :hand:
Click to expand...

Okay Vash, that's twice now in this thread that you've yelled loudly at me to get my attention so you could let me know that you think I'm a bigot, that you cannot tolerate my opinions and that you want me to shut me up.

The definition of a bigot is: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; _especially_ *:* one who regards or treats an individual or the members of a group (such as a religious, racial or ethnic group) with prejudice, discrimination, hatred and intolerance.

You don't need to yell at me to get my attention but if you think I'm a bigot towards you or this group and you want me to shut up you're going to have to give me a good reason to shut up or to admit my fault and apologize to you. So please explain to me exactly how I have demonstrated prejudice, hatred, intolerance and discrimination towards you or this group. Since you've singled me out and haven't told any other participants in this thread that they're bigots that you want to shut up perhaps you can also tell me why your own intolerance of me in particular doesn't qualify you as an discriminating bigot.

Can you do that?


----------



## MJsLady

What amazes me in these types of discussions is the Christians are the ones accused of being rude, mean and so on. 

However we aren't the ones demanding some one else bend to our will. We aren't the ones suing and costing folks their livelihood to get our way and force folks to deal with us.

We just want to be left alone to do what we believe we are COMMANDED to do by the God we serve. 

We don't want into your bed room. We do want your bedroom out of the public focus. You want to be gay? More power to you just quit telling us we have to approve of it and support it and assist in it. (by baking, picture taking, dress making what ever. )

Some one bigger and more important has already told us the opposite and His word has been the accepted norm for centuries. 

Seriously, most Christians I know, don't care if a person is gay. They are just tired of it being rubbed in their face every time they turn on the tv or open a magazine.


----------



## unregistered41671

MJsLady said:


> What amazes me in these types of discussions is the Christians are the ones accused of being rude, mean and so on.
> 
> However we aren't the ones demanding some one else bend to our will. We aren't the ones suing and costing folks their livelihood to get our way and force folks to deal with us.
> 
> We just want to be left alone to do what we believe we are COMMANDED to do by the God we serve.
> 
> We don't want into your bed room. We do want your bedroom out of the public focus. You want to be gay? More power to you just quit telling us we have to approve of it and support it and assist in it. (by baking, picture taking, dress making what ever. )
> 
> Some one bigger and more important has already told us the opposite and His word has been the accepted norm for centuries.
> 
> Seriously, most Christians I know, don't care if a person is gay. They are just tired of it being rubbed in their face every time they turn on the tv or open a magazine.



AMEN and AMEN!!!!


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> What amazes me in these types of discussions is the Christians are the ones accused of being rude, mean and so on.
> 
> However we aren't the ones demanding some one else bend to our will. We aren't the ones suing and costing folks their livelihood to get our way and force folks to deal with us.
> 
> We just want to be left alone to do what we believe we are COMMANDED to do by the God we serve.
> 
> We don't want into your bed room. We do want your bedroom out of the public focus. You want to be gay? More power to you just quit telling us we have to approve of it and support it and assist in it. (by baking, picture taking, dress making what ever. )
> 
> Some one bigger and more important has already told us the opposite and His word has been the accepted norm for centuries.
> 
> Seriously, most Christians I know, don't care if a person is gay. They are just tired of it being rubbed in their face every time they turn on the tv or open a magazine.


We have Christianity rubbed in our faces all the time. What is the difference?


----------



## MJsLady

painterswife said:


> We have Christianity rubbed in our faces all the time. What is the difference?


You have been or know someone who has threatened for not kowtowing to Christianity? How come that hasn't been reported?


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> You have been or know someone who has threatened for not kowtowing to Christianity? How come that hasn't been reported?


Funny, I don't think that is what I said, so I can't really respond to it.

PS the Cake Baker and all the examples here were reported because they discriminated not because of their religion.


----------



## CountryWannabe

Possum Belly said:


> It would in my case, make a difference to me. I would not bow my head or pray to just anything, even out of respect. No telling what or to who some pray to. I would not expect anyone else to do so either.


I am not American. However, when the Anthem is played I stand, straight and respectful until it is over. I am not particularly religious yet when I eat at someone's home (or even at a restaurant with some friends) and they want to say grace I bow my head and remain silent. Are you saying that you would not be at all put out if I were with you and I started dancing the Boogie to the Stars and Stripes, or carried on a loud phone conversation while you prayed? Sometimes there is need of decorum.

Mary


----------



## greenmulberry

It seems to me that if someone is in the wedding cake business, and selling wedding cakes to segments of the population would cause such unacceptable moral problems for this person, then maybe they should find another type of business that does not cause them such strife.

There is gonna be a lot more gay weddings coming up, seems every day another state allows it.


----------



## greenmulberry

Vash said:


> And for those businesses that do "custom" work that is uncatalogued?



You can say you don't do certain types of work. 

When I was a dog groomer, we would not groom chows.


----------



## unregistered41671

CountryWannabe said:


> I am not American. However, when the Anthem is played I stand, straight and respectful until it is over. I am not particularly religious yet when I eat at someone's home (or even at a restaurant with some friends) and they want to say grace I bow my head and remain silent. Are you saying that you would not be at all put out if I were with you and I started dancing the Boogie to the Stars and Stripes, or carried on a loud phone conversation while you prayed? Sometimes there is need of decorum.
> 
> Mary


I am not speaking of the National Anthem, however I do stand erect, take off my hat and place my hand over my heart.
I am respectful of everyone's religion, I am just careful to Whom I pray to.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> Yes it was. Back in the days where there was real racism local (and even state) governments would set things up so blacks could not own businesses. This meant they had to buy from white businesses and in a lot of areas these businesses were owned by people where were Klan leaders. Remember back in the day in some areas you had to be a Klan member to even hope to get elected to political office.


Okay, you're asking what I think of that - I think it was wrong that things were set up so blacks were not able to own businesses and that politicians had to be Klan members to get elected. If that kind of thing is still happening in places, then I still think it is wrong. But as you say that was "back in the day" that leads me to understand that those kinds of business discriminations towards racial minorities are no longer in effect and political people in those places are no longer required to be Klan members to get elected to political office. There may be a lesson to be kept in mind about those racial and political inequities of the past, such lessons to be applied to the here and now of the present.



watcher said:


> But even if it wasn't what's the difference in you being forced to sell your goods to someone you "hate" and being forced to buy from someone which you either hate or hates you?


I see no difference between the two. I think common sense should dictate that if a person hates people they probably shouldn't be doing business with those people. They may do better to take their business elsewhere or else not conduct that business at all. I'm not aware of any government agency today that forces people who hate each other to do business with each other.



watcher said:


> And I have to ask if the government has the power to force you to sell to a group of people does it not also have the power to force you NOT to sell to a group?


That is already in effect in many instances. Minors are a group who merchants are not permitted to sell certain types of merchandise to, such as tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. There are dry counties in some places where nobody can sell any kind of alcohol to anyone of any age. There are some types of firearms that are prohibited to be sold to certain groups. There are certain groups who are not permitted to purchase any types of firearms at all, or people who are not permitted to purchase licenses of certain types because they are deemed not fit to have such license. If a merchant sells to them they are both committing a crime. That's just a few examples of governments having the power to force sellers to not sell to certain groups, there are other examples but I'm sure you get my drift.

So it stands to reason that if a duly elected government has been given power to force merchants to not sell certain things to certain groups they must also be given power to force merchants to sell certain things to certain groups. You can't have one without the other - no double standards for anyone if everyone is going to be equal and you want to avoid the inequities of the past such as the inequities you pointed out occurred in the past with the blacks and Klansman politicians.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Uh. . .excuse me, care to show me where the USC requires a individual citizen to sell his goods, services and/or labor to anyone who demands it?
> 
> If I don't like the fact you came into my store wearing white after labor day I should have the right to not sell you MY goods which are in MY store bought with MY money and put there and sold with MY labor.
> 
> The same should apply if the reason was because you didn't speak Farsi or are left handed.
> 
> Also, if the government has the power to force you to sell to people even if you wish not to does it not also have the right to forbid you from selling to people?


The constitution by itself is not where you will find antidiscrimination laws... but it does empower congress to pass them and they have done so. Depending upon the business you are in can make a difference. The federal fair housing act strictly prohibits discriminating against a feller due to race religion ethnic background and familial status. If a feller has the cash in fist you are indeed required to sell or rent to him. If you run a pawn shop and don't like my hair style you probably will not encounter any legal problems by not dealing with me... but if you refuse to sell to me based on my skin color or my religion it can get sticky in court.


----------



## MJsLady

PW you asked the difference.
The difference is Christians are being sued to kwotow to the gl demands. 
Christians are not flaunting their Faith and suing those who refuse to approve of it and help us in it. 
We aren't rubbing anyone's face in our lifestyle. We just go about doing what we do the way our Lord commands us. 
Whoo hooo lookie at meeee I am a Christian and you best sell me a widget that meets MY criteria even if you are totally offended by me or else. 

Now granted there are some people who will do this and say they are Christians. However they are no more Christian than a person who lives in a hen house is a chicken. Why? Brecause we are expressly forbidden from acting that way. 

If we go to a shop and ask for a cake to be baked with crosses and scripture on it and are told no we are to go elsewhere. The difference between Christians and the world of unbelievers is we have a rule book. It tells us to go quietly about our business. Do our work and eat bread we earned in all quietness and be dependent on no one. To love and support each other. No where does it tell us to support unbelievers in what our Lord called sin. 

The worldly person is free to stomp their feet and demand their way. We are to turn and walk away not do the same back.


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> PW you asked the difference.
> The difference is Christians are being sued to kwotow to the gl demands.
> Christians are not flaunting their Faith and suing those who refuse to approve of it and help us in it.
> We aren't rubbing anyone's face in our lifestyle. We just go about doing what we do the way our Lord commands us.
> Whoo hooo lookie at meeee I am a Christian and you best sell me a widget that meets MY criteria even if you are totally offended by me or else.
> 
> Now granted there are some people who will do this and say they are Christians. However they are no more Christian than a person who lives in a hen house is a chicken. Why? Brecause we are expressly forbidden from acting that way.
> 
> If we go to a shop and ask for a cake to be baked with crosses and scripture on it and are told no we are to go elsewhere. The difference between Christians and the world of unbelievers is we have a rule book. It tells us to go quietly about our business. Do our work and eat bread we earned in all quietness and be dependent on no one. To love and support each other. No where does it tell us to support unbelievers in what our Lord called sin.
> 
> The worldly person is free to stomp their feet and demand their way. We are to turn and walk away not do the same back.


Just because same same sex couples are being asked to be treated the same under the non discrimination laws just not mean they are targeting Christians. They are asking to be treated the same as any other couple being married.

For your information non Christians have been targeted for centuries by Christians and are still targeted now. You may believe they are not Christians but that is between them and God and not for me or you to decide.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Yes - I think a bigot should be able to be a bigot and live his bigoted life in his private dealings. The qualifier being that it be in his private life so he harms nobody but himself, not in public where his bigotry can harm others.


How does someone saying he hates you because of your height harm you? How does him refusing to sell you HIS property harm you?




Paumon said:


> No - I don't think it should have to be a full constitutional right. I think to try to make something like that a constitutional right would be an abuse of the constitution and its purposes as a guideline for everyone. The constitution is supposed to be for everyone, isn't it? If bigots wanted a constitutional right to be bigots where would the line be drawn on other things that they demand should be constitutional rights for them alone but that may exclude others and deprive others of constitutional rights?


Care to show me just where in the USC you are given the right to buy anything from a private citizen?

Also if the government can force you to sell to a specific group can it not also force you to not sell to a specific group?


----------



## MDKatie

I see plenty of Christians boo-hooing over things, like when people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", or when they're upset that the creation theory isn't taught in schools. 

Christians flaunt their faith all over the place. We get religious pamphlets stuck in our doors, our mailboxes, and if we're unlucky enough to be home, we sometimes get visits from people trying to convert us to their religion. Christians put scripture quotes on everything, from websites, to business cards, to signs, to product packaging. 

And how is the GLBT community supposed to get equal treatment if someone doesn't speak out and demand it? We all know our society hasn't had the best track record of non-white, non-hetero population... How did women get the vote? People spoke out. How did slaves get freed? People spoke out. How did we get desegregated? People spoke out! 

And if people don't want the gay lifestyle "shoved in their faces", then they should also speak about about heterosexual PDAs...no kissing, hand holding, nudity on television, etc. , for anyone.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Ok, so judge away if you want...be unkind to others if you want.


If I think you are placing yourself in danger which is the more unkind thing to do:
1) Stand back and do nothing, not even warn you of the danger or 
2) Warn you of the danger.

If you were about to step through a set of elevator doors would you get upset if someone yelled at you if they thought there was no car there? If I think you are doing something which is going to result in you going to Hell what kind of unkind, unfeeling, self centered jerk would I be if I just let you do it w/o warning you? 





MDKatie said:


> And my post was responding to paradox. I even quoted him when replying...so it wasn't really about your post anyways.


You do realize this is an open forum not a private message, don't you?


----------



## watcher

gweny said:


> "judge not, lest ye be judged."
> 
> Let me post the entire thing in context.


_âDo not judge so that you will not be judged.__ For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brotherâs eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, âLet me take the speck out of your eye,â and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brotherâs eye._ (Matthew 7:1-5 NIV)

Note that it says the way we judge will be used to judge us. If you know the Bible you know that we all are going to be judge by God's standards. Therefore if you are going to judge someone it better be by God's standards not yours. Think about it if you can't judge someone how can you say ANYTHING anyone does is a sin?

Also note the last verse. It says AFTER you have removed the log from your eye you can then see well enough to remove the speck from someone elses. How can we remove the speck if we do not first look for it?

If you search there's at least one thread on this very issue on the board.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Funny, I don't think that is what I said, so I can't really respond to it.
> 
> PS the Cake Baker and all the examples here were reported because they discriminated not because of their religion.


Again they refused to sell their private service to someone they didn't like. To me that's the very base of freedom. To be able to do what you wish with your life.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> If I think you are placing yourself in danger which is the more unkind thing to do:
> 1) Stand back and do nothing, not even warn you of the danger or
> 2) Warn you of the danger.
> 
> If you were about to step through a set of elevator doors would you get upset if someone yelled at you if they thought there was no car there? If I think you are doing something which is going to result in you going to Hell what kind of unkind, unfeeling, self centered jerk would I be if I just let you do it w/o warning you?


Those are actual, physical dangers. There is no physical danger when 2 homosexuals who are in love get married.





> You do realize this is an open forum not a private message, don't you?


Shouldn't you have private messaged me that?


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> How does someone saying he hates you because of your height harm you? How does him refusing to sell you HIS property harm you?
> 
> Care to show me just where in the USC you are given the right to buy anything from a private citizen?
> 
> Also if the government can force you to sell to a specific group can it not also force you to not sell to a specific group?


If someone hates me because of my (fill in blank space _____ ) he can harm me by discriminating against me. If his hatred and discrimination against me is public it may inspire other people to hate me and to discriminate against me because of my "______". If he and the group he inspired to hate and discriminate against me because of my "_____" continues to grow unabated it will cause a snowball effect of them and more and more people like them into hating and discriminating against all other people because of their "_____".

Now - you tell me how this behaviour of hatred and discrimination and not doing business with me and all other people of "_______" is not doing harm to everyone in all society. 




> Care to show me just where in the USC you are given the right to buy anything from a private citizen?


Where does it say in the USC that you are not given the right to buy from a private citizen? And how is the question relevant to the topic at hand which is about discrimination in public service and merchantry?


As to your question #3, I already answered that in my last post, post #270.


----------



## watcher

greenmulberry said:


> It seems to me that if someone is in the wedding cake business, and selling wedding cakes to segments of the population would cause such unacceptable moral problems for this person, then maybe they should find another type of business that does not cause them such strife.
> 
> There is gonna be a lot more gay weddings coming up, seems every day another state allows it.


Let's say you were trying to sell your car and someone you didn't like came to you and offered to buy it. Should the government have the power to force you to sell it to them?

Better yet say you want to sell your labor (i.e. wanted a job) and there was someone offering to buy it to do something you felt was against your beliefs should the government have the power to force you to sell your labor to them?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Okay, you're asking what I think of that - I think it was wrong that things were set up so blacks were not able to own businesses and that politicians had to be Klan members to get elected. If that kind of thing is still happening in places, then I still think it is wrong. But as you say that was "back in the day" that leads me to understand that those kinds of business discriminations towards racial minorities are no longer in effect and political people in those places are no longer required to be Klan members to get elected to political office. There may be a lesson to be kept in mind about those racial and political inequities of the past, such lessons to be applied to the here and now of the present.


Why would you have a problem with it? After all if you feel that a businessman should be forced by government edict to sell to a group of people he doesn't like why should a citizen be forced by government edict to buy from someone they don't like?




Paumon said:


> That is already in effect in many instances. Minors are a group who merchants are not permitted to sell certain types of merchandise to, such as tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. There are dry counties in some places where nobody can sell any kind of alcohol to anyone of any age. There are some types of firearms that are prohibited to be sold to certain groups. There are certain groups who are not permitted to purchase any types of firearms at all, or people who are not permitted to purchase licenses of certain types because they are deemed not fit to have such license. If a merchant sells to them they are both committing a crime. That's just a few examples of governments having the power to force sellers to not sell to certain groups, there are other examples but I'm sure you get my drift.


Ok, so you agree that its ok for the government to restrict the selling to specific groups, as long as you agree that the group should not be allowed to be discriminated against. I'm sorry but I have a difficult time justifying that you can sell booze to a 25 y.o. who is known to be an alcoholic but you can't sell it to a 14 y.o. who might well drink it responsibly just of some age picked out of thin air. 

There are limits on all rights but those limits should be the smallest and lest restrictive as possible. 




Paumon said:


> So it stands to reason that if a duly elected government has been given power to force merchants to not sell certain things to certain groups they must also be given power to force merchants to sell certain things to certain groups. You can't have one without the other - no double standards for anyone if everyone is going to be equal and you want to avoid the inequities of the past such as the inequities you pointed out occurred in the past with the blacks and Klansman politicians.


So you'd have no problem if the government came in and told you who you could sell your labor to? After all if you think a duly elected government can tell you who you may and may not sell your goods to why should they not be able to tell you who you may or may not sell your labor to?


----------



## MJsLady

Bull feathers. 
First of all, Christians are forbidden from targeting others. So those who do are not real Christians. Period. Yes I include the crusaders and the spaniards that told the indians believe or die in this. Christ never asked or gave permission for us to harm others. If we disagree we are to walk away. 

Christians should have the right, under the non discrimination laws to not make things that offend them. A cake is an inanimate object and in and of itself should be inoffensive. However if the purpose of the cake is at a cross purpose with God's word, the Christian has to follow God. Period. We unlike a nonChristian baker do not have a choice. 

You want to stop a true Christian from reaching out to you? Tell them so. Jesus told you to leave us alone and wash the dust of our place off your feet if we will not hear you. I can provide you scripture to quote at them if you wish. 

How many have sued you for the right to infiltrate your home or business? How many have sued you to make you listen to their spiel? or accept their literature? This is what the lgbt is doing. Trying to force Christians to accept their lifestyle which as stated, we are forbidden by a higher authority than even SCOTUS, from doing. 

If the website, business card, packaging or sign belongs to the Christian they have the right to put scripture on it. Just as the wiccans or atheists, muslims and lgbt do on theirs. Christians do not have the right to demand their scriptures be put on things belonging to others. 

As watcher said. Right now the gov says it can force folks to sell to those they desire not to. What happens when this phase passes and the gov decides it can tell folks they can not sell to certain people? You can not have it one way and not the other. 

As to the slave thing, again bull feathers. No one is forcing the lgbt into servitude. The baker did not try to force them to buy a different cake. We just want to be left alone. If I go to do business with some one who doesn't want my business I am not going to sue them. No matter WHY they don't want my business. I will go find some one who does.

Well since Christmas isn't a biblical holiday there is no reason to boohoo. Nor is there reason to be offended by some one wishing you a merry Christmas. 

And excuse me but if one theory is good enough to be taught, the other deserves equal time. THEORY does not equal fact period.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The constitution by itself is not where you will find antidiscrimination laws...


Yep. I don't think you'll find any laws in the USC but. . .



Yvonne's hubby said:


> but it does empower congress to pass them and they have done so.


Funny, the last time I read the USC it said what the government could and could not do. It says that the government can not discriminate but I don't see any where it says that a private and free citizen can not do so. Just where is it stated that the congress has the power to force the individual to treat everyone equally?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Depending upon the business you are in can make a difference. The federal fair housing act strictly prohibits discriminating against a feller due to race religion ethnic background and familial status.


And again I ask; just where in the USC the power to control private property given the the federal government?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> If a feller has the cash in fist you are indeed required to sell or rent to him. If you run a pawn shop and don't like my hair style you probably will not encounter any legal problems by not dealing with me... but if you refuse to sell to me based on my skin color or my religion it can get sticky in court.


Only because the government has taken power it does not have the right to have. Again one of the very basic things which freedom is built upon is the freedom to do with your private property as you wish.

Remember this:

If something must be taken from another before it can be given to you it is not a right. You have no right to have a house, a car, a wedding cake or even medical care.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Those are actual, physical dangers. There is no physical danger when 2 homosexuals who are in love get married.


Did the point go over your head or are you deliberately refusing to see it?




MDKatie said:


> Shouldn't you have private messaged me that?


Nope, open form and all that.


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> Bull feathers.
> First of all, Christians are forbidden from targeting others. So those who do are not real Christians. Period. Yes I include the crusaders and the spaniards that told the indians believe or die in this. Christ never asked or gave permission for us to harm others. If we disagree we are to walk away.
> 
> Christians should have the right, under the non discrimination laws to not make things that offend them. A cake is an inanimate object and in and of itself should be inoffensive. However if the purpose of the cake is at a cross purpose with God's word, the Christian has to follow God. Period. We unlike a nonChristian baker do not have a choice.
> 
> You want to stop a true Christian from reaching out to you? Tell them so. Jesus told you to leave us alone and wash the dust of our place off your feet if we will not hear you. I can provide you scripture to quote at them if you wish.
> 
> How many have sued you for the right to infiltrate your home or business? How many have sued you to make you listen to their spiel? or accept their literature? This is what the lgbt is doing. Trying to force Christians to accept their lifestyle which as stated, we are forbidden by a higher authority than even SCOTUS, from doing.
> 
> If the website, business card, packaging or sign belongs to the Christian they have the right to put scripture on it. Just as the wiccans or atheists, muslims and lgbt do on theirs. Christians do not have the right to demand their scriptures be put on things belonging to others.
> 
> As watcher said. Right now the gov says it can force folks to sell to those they desire not to. What happens when this phase passes and the gov decides it can tell folks they can not sell to certain people? You can not have it one way and not the other.
> 
> As to the slave thing, again bull feathers. No one is forcing the lgbt into servitude. The baker did not try to force them to buy a different cake. We just want to be left alone. If I go to do business with some one who doesn't want my business I am not going to sue them. No matter WHY they don't want my business. I will go find some one who does.
> 
> Well since Christmas isn't a biblical holiday there is no reason to boohoo. Nor is there reason to be offended by some one wishing you a merry Christmas.
> 
> And excuse me but if one theory is good enough to be taught, the other deserves equal time. THEORY does not equal fact period.


So you get to decide who is Christian and who is not? You can't be a Christian if you do something that is considered a sin? I guess there are no Christians then. I guess that no Christians ever sued for their rights under the constitution, religious or not religious.

What an eye opener this has been. I am pretty sure that there are people that think they are Christian suing in the courts right now for their religious. rights.


----------



## Vash

MJsLady said:


> Bull feathers.
> First of all, Christians are forbidden from targeting others. So those who do are not real Christians.


BAH! No True Scotsman Fallacy!


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Okay Vash, that's twice now in this thread that you've yelled loudly at me to get my attention so you could let me know that you think I'm a bigot, that you cannot tolerate my opinions and that you want me to shut me up.
> 
> The definition of a bigot is: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; _especially_ *:* one who regards or treats an individual or the members of a group (such as a religious, racial or ethnic group) with prejudice, discrimination, hatred and intolerance.
> 
> You don't need to yell at me to get my attention but if you think I'm a bigot towards you or this group and you want me to shut up you're going to have to give me a good reason to shut up or to admit my fault and apologize to you. So please explain to me exactly how I have demonstrated prejudice, hatred, intolerance and discrimination towards you or this group. Since you've singled me out and haven't told any other participants in this thread that they're bigots that you want to shut up perhaps you can also tell me why your own intolerance of me in particular doesn't qualify you as an discriminating bigot.
> 
> Can you do that?


First, yelling in a forum would involve LOTS AND LOTS OF CAPS! No yelling at all, but it did get your attention so it worked out any way. Nor, have I told you or anyone else in this thread to "shut up". (More strawman fallacies)

Secondly, I've "singled" you out because this applies to you the most given that you've used the word 'bigot' at least 3 times as often (in a derogatory manner) as any one else in the thread thus making you the most vocal about that particular side of the discussion.

Thirdly, If you re-read the definition of bigot YOU yourself fall into that category because you've already established that _anyone_ who has an opinion that differs from yours (on the topic of this thread) is a bigot, even if that person merely doesn't agree with you. 

Your posts vehemently state that any who who agrees with or supports the bill in question or the actions that can be taken associated with it are wrong and you resort to name calling (specifically: bigot). Whereas those on the opposite side of the argument have not (from what I've read) resorted to petty and consistent name-calling. 

You've even implicated an entire nation in your earlier (and laughable) post about how something like this (bill) would never happen in Canada (or at least BC). Thus confirming that you see yourself (and possibly your province/country) as "morally superior" and everyone else (to include every American who would support this measure) is just a bigot.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> *I am pretty sure that there are people that think they are Christian suing in the courts right now for their religious. rights.*


Please direct me to the National News coverage of those...


----------



## MJsLady

PW, no not me, the WORD says what a Christian can and can not do. Those who follow the word are Christians. Whose who blatantly decide they can do as they choose.
so may fall and stumble and come back to the truth. 

However none can live continually in their disobedience and still claim Faith. True Faith would make them change their behaviors. 

There is a difference between me deciding and seeing the fruits of a persons life, which btw we are told will tell us who is real and who is not. My feelings and opinion have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> So you get to decide who is Christian and who is not?


No, the Bible does.



painterswife said:


> You can't be a Christian if you do something that is considered a sin?


Bible states very clearly that there was only ONE PERSON that was without sin, but many Christians nonetheless.


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> PW, no not me, the WORD says what a Christian can and can not do. Those who follow the word are Christians. Whose who blatantly decide they can do as they choose.
> so may fall and stumble and come back to the truth.
> 
> However none can live continually in their disobedience and still claim Faith. True Faith would make them change their behaviors.
> 
> There is a difference between me deciding and seeing the fruits of a persons life, which btw we are told will tell us who is real and who is not. My feelings and opinion have nothing to do with it.


Lots of interpretations of what those words convey. That is why there are many different Christian denominations. So forgive me if I don,t think you are the authority on what being Christian is to all Christian's.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> No, the Bible does.
> 
> 
> 
> Bible states very clearly that there was only ONE PERSON that was without sin, but many Christians nonetheless.


Yet, someone here is deciding what and who a Christian is instead of leaving it up to God.


----------



## unregistered41671

Some people don't want to hear the truth. Some would not know the truth if it kicked them in the butt.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Yet, someone here is deciding what and who a Christian is instead of leaving it up to God.


:huh: Is that someone basing their statements on what the Bible gives as a guide? Because if they are then technically they are leaving it up to God.

If I found out someone stole something I'd have no problem saying that they messed up because it states very clearly in The Bible (the Word of God) that stealing is sin.

What happens AFTER the sin has been brought to light is what makes or breaks things. I could then help the individual back to the path of righteousness or I could point fingers and "[----] them to an eternity of fire and brimstone" [Westboro Baptist anyone?]


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> :huh: Is that someone basing their statements on what the Bible gives as a guide? Because if they are then technically they are leaving it up to God.
> 
> If I found out someone stole something I'd have no problem saying that they messed up because it states very clearly in The Bible (the Word of God) that stealing is sin.
> 
> What happens AFTER the sin has been brought to light is what makes or breaks things. I could then help the individual back to the path of righteousness or I could point fingers and "[----] them to an eternity of fire and brimstone" [Westboro Baptist anyone?]


She was the one claiming that Christians suing for their religious rights are not Christian's. Tell that to those churches going to court so they don't have to pay for birth control.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> She was the one claiming that Christians suing for their religious rights are not Christian's. Tell that to those churches going to court so they don't have to pay for birth control.


She stated Christians were not allowed to target others. 

Churches going to court (against the government) so they don't have to pay for or provide birth control is not targeting it is preventing a violation of their 1st amendment right.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> She stated Christians were not allowed to target others.
> 
> Churches going to court (against the government) so they don't have to pay for or provide birth control is not targeting it is preventing a violation of their 1st amendment right.


You should read all her posts.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> You should read all her posts.


You should stop with the 'appeal to hypocrisy'.


----------



## painterswife

Says the king of that tactic.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Says the king of that tactic.


Ad Hominem.

Keep going, I like getting my post count up. :nanner:


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> First, yelling in a forum would involve LOTS AND LOTS OF CAPS! No yelling at all, but it did get your attention so it worked out any way. Nor, have I told you or anyone else in this thread to "shut up". (More strawman fallacies)
> 
> Secondly, I've "singled" you out because this applies to you the most given that you've used the word 'bigot' at least 3 times as often (in a derogatory manner) as any one else in the thread thus making you the most vocal about that particular side of the discussion.
> 
> Thirdly, If you re-read the definition of bigot YOU yourself fall into that category because you've already established that _anyone_ who has an opinion that differs from yours (on the topic of this thread) is a bigot, even if that person merely doesn't agree with you.
> 
> Your posts vehemently state that any who who agrees with or supports the bill in question or the actions that can be taken associated with it are wrong and you resort to name calling (specifically: bigot). Whereas those on the opposite side of the argument have not (from what I've read) resorted to petty and consistent name-calling.
> 
> You've even implicated an entire nation in your earlier (and laughable) post about how something like this (bill) would never happen in Canada (or at least BC). Thus confirming that you see yourself (and possibly your province/country) as "morally superior" and everyone else (to include every American who would support this measure) is just a bigot.


You don't like me using the word bigot more often than anyone else? :huh: Bigotry is exactly what this entire topic is about. To quote Watcher the Original Poster in his very first post:



watcher said:


> ..... But a private citizen has the right to be as bigoted as he wishes ......


If you can think of a better and more definitive word to use other than bigot I'd like to know what it is. I might even use that word more frequently instead if it pleases me.

I'm not going to say yea or nay to the rest of your post - I'll just say I'm sorry I've offended your delicate sensitivities with my frequent use of the word bigot. However, since bigotry is what this topic is all about I'm not going to stop objecting to bigotry nor stop posting things that you may or may not find disagreeable to your own beliefs. So if my posts offend you so much and if you find you are in complete disagreement with everything I say then all I can suggest is that you skip over my posts or utilize your option of putting me on ignore.

And just to confirm one particular thing with you - yes, I freely admit that I do believe that Canada and several other countries are "morally superior" to America. That doesn't mean that I think Canada or other countries are "better" than America and it doesn't mean that I don't like America and American people - if I didn't like the folks here then I would not be a participant here. 

You're a recent newcomer to this forum, only been here a couple of months or less, so you're just now becoming familiar with various members on this board. Anyone else who's been on the board for a long time is already aware of many of the moral beliefs that I espouse and they either ignore me (which you have the option of doing) or they've come to expect (or even accept) my differences and still willingly participate in getting into some rousing discussions with me. I appreciate that we are afforded the opportunity to converse and share our differences and similarities with each other.

You don't have to do that if you don't want to. There is no government here forcing you to pay attention to me or to discourse with me.


----------



## Evons hubby

Before the admins close this thread I just have a couple things I would like to say.

I think it is very sad that our government ever needed to write any anti discrimination laws.... are we really such dismal human beings that we cannot love and embrace the next feller just because he happens to be "different" than ourselves?

I have been a Christian for over fifty years and the Christ I know and love would bake the cake that so many here are so offended over. Pretty sure He will forgive a gay couple of their sins just the same as He will my own.


----------



## MJsLady

Ah but brother what does Christ say when he forgives? Go and sin no more. Not go back to what you were doing.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> You're a recent newcomer to this forum, only been here a couple of months or less, so you're just now becoming familiar with various members on this board. Anyone else who's been on the board for a long time is already aware of many of the moral beliefs that I espouse and they either ignore me (which you have the option of doing) or they've come to expect (or even accept) my differences and still willingly participate in getting into some rousing discussions with me.


As a newcomer I will counter that because I have not been on this forum for very long that you also are unaware of how my beliefs and opinions are expressed. Participating in this discussion is exactly what we are doing.



Paumon said:


> There is no government here forcing you to pay attention to me or to discourse with me.


Those words I shoot right back at you. :buds:


----------



## Paumon

Good enough then. :happy2:


----------



## Vash

For the record, I married a Canadian.:spinsmiley:


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> For the record, I married a Canadian.:spinsmiley:


Is your Canadian spouse morally superior to you? eep: :teehee:


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have been a Christian for over fifty years and the Christ I know and love would bake *the cake that so many here are so offended over*.


BAH! No one is offended by the cake. It's the idea that the Government can come in and say you HAVE to make the cake that bothers many.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Is your Canadian spouse morally superior to you? eep: :teehee:


I plead the 5th. :walk:


----------



## Evons hubby

MJsLady said:


> Ah but brother what does Christ say when he forgives? Go and sin no more. Not go back to what you were doing.


That is what He told one sinner for sure and certain... but He also said we are to love one another.... and especially our enemies. Discriminating against someone is not loving them. There is another player in Gods game.. and he thrives on hatred and discord. I would far rather play it Christ's way and love the sinner than feed Satan with hatred.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is what He told one sinner for sure and certain... but He also said we are to love one another.... and especially our enemies. Discriminating against someone is not loving them. There is another player in Gods game.. and he thrives on hatred and discord. I would far rather play it Christ's way and love the sinner than feed Satan with hatred.


You assume that there is hatred attached to someone's disapproval of another person's choices.

I don't hate the Chinese, but I try to avoid as much 'made in China' stuff I can.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> BAH! No one is offended by the cake. It's the idea that the Government can come in and say you HAVE to make the cake that bothers many.


I find it some what amusing..... if one is in the business of baking cakes... why the government would even need to intervene!! Bake it and take the mans money already.... what's the rub?


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find it some what amusing..... if one is in the business of baking cakes... why the government would even need to intervene!! Bake it and take the mans money already.... what's the rub?


Money isn't everything to some?

One could also argue that the patrons could have easily went to a different baker.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> Nope, open form and all that.


:bored: I guess my post went over your head. I have the right to post in an open forum as well.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> You assume that there is hatred attached to someone's disapproval of another person's choices.
> 
> I don't hate the Chinese, but I try to avoid as much 'made in China' stuff I can.


I seldom assume much... but I have picked up on more than a little negativity while following this thread.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I seldom assume much... but I have picked up on more than a little negativity while following this thread.


The government is involved, of course there is negativity. gre:


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> Money isn't everything to some?
> 
> One could also argue that the patrons could have easily went to a different baker.


Perhaps they did.... and were met with the same attitudes?


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps they did.... and were met with the same attitudes?


Perhaps they aren't used to someone telling them no...and they threw a hissy fit?


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> Perhaps they aren't used to someone telling them no...and they threw a hissy fit?


Ya gotta admit that most businesses normally are happy to take someone's money. I have only been turned down once and yeah I got a big upset and refused to go back for a long while. They werent discriminating against me... just a stupid store "policy".


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ya gotta admit that most businesses normally are happy to take someone's money.


I thought the same thing until Girls Scouts of America announced they were no longer setting up shop outside marijuana dispensaries in Colorado.


----------



## paradox

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is what He told one sinner for sure and certain... but He also said we are to love one another.... and especially our enemies. Discriminating against someone is not loving them. There is another player in Gods game.. and he thrives on hatred and discord. I would far rather play it Christ's way and love the sinner than feed Satan with hatred.


I know this is kind of off the topic but still trying to get a handle on your stance.
If you were asked to provide a service or product for a satanic ceremony would you be comfortable doing that?

I would also add that just because I don't want to participate in something that is against my beliefs, does not mean I hate or dislike the people involved. I did not attend one of my dearest friends bachelerette party because it was at a strip club. I have skipped numerous friend or family gatherings because I knew there was going to be heavy drinking. I have on a number of occasions quietly slipped away from conversations that turned dirty or inappropriate for me to hear. I can love, like, or associate with any number of different types of people and still exercise my right to distance myself from aspects of their lives that are contrary to my religion.

Please don't assume that everyone on this side of the argument is full of hate.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> I thought the same thing until Girls Scouts of America announced they were no longer setting up shop outside marijuana dispensaries in Colorado.


Interstingly enough I havent noticed them setting up outside the adult bookstores either... could be the image thing... or maybe not enough traffic?


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interstingly enough I havent noticed them setting up outside the adult bookstores either...


Maybe because porn isn't medicinal? At least not in any official studies I've seen...


----------



## Evons hubby

paradox said:


> I know this is kind of off the topic but still trying to get a handle on your stance.
> If you were asked to provide a service or product for a satanic ceremony would you be comfortable doing that?
> 
> I would also add that just because I don't want to participate in something that is against my beliefs, does not mean I hate or dislike the people involved. I did not attend one of my dearest friends bachelerette party because it was at a strip club. I have skipped numerous friend or family gatherings because I knew there was going to be heavy drinking. I have on a number of occasions quietly slipped away from conversations that turned dirty or inappropriate for me to hear. I can love, like, or associate with any number of different types of people and still exercise my right to distance myself from aspects of their lives that are contrary to my religion.
> 
> Please don't assume that everyone on this side of the argument is full of hate.


OK..if I ran a bakery and someone wanted a cake decorated with "satanic" symbols... one cake coming up, and stick the cash in my pocket. If I ran a butcher shop and was asked to cut the heart out of a live human for their sacrifice.... nope I don't kill people.

You are missing out on some pretty good parties. One does not need to get drunk just because some of the others do. I enjoy a good party and often have a few drinks.... doesn't mean I am going to commit some horrible sin.


----------



## joebill

Y'know, there IS a fair amount of negativity here over the issue and bound to be more spread over the whole country, but one has to look at where it started.

Although I'm sure it happens, i have never engaged in aggressive behavior against gays and never would. I had a great neighbor up north that was gay, and he was a good friend and I was a good friend to him when he needed it. We respected one another as men and practiced good manners towards one another, WHICH MEANS......we never intentionally made one another uncomfortable. Each of us learned a lot about the other's work and interests and argued politics a LOT, but neither of us ever rubbed the other's nose in our differences. I still call him and catch up on the town and mutual aquaintences from time to time. A true gentleman, whose life would have been much better had he not been born the way he is, but who has friends all over, simply because he is a glentleman, and I never saw anybody mistreat him or belittle him, even in that small town small minded backwater. Call him group one.

Then, on the other hand, one of my daughters attended a college where the "arts" were a major part of the ciriculum, and was paired on a project with a gay of a different sort. he couldn't talk about anything except being gay, including the work they were supposed to be doing. She finally told him;

"Look, I will work with you, i will even do most of the work and not complain. I will be friendly with you, I will clean up the mess while you leave early, i will not complain when i do the entire project because you have a pressing date, but I will NOT;
help you do your nails
help you pick your girl name
Listen to you talk about getting laid last night
Treat you like a girlfriend
You have to stop flaming me."

The guy started screaming at her, called her the "C" word. She slapped him, and he picked her up bodily and threw her across the room onto the back of a chair, breaking a rib and doing some other damage. Call him group two.

Her intended and I drew straws to see who got to go up there and straighten the whole thing out, but the gay guy was already long gone, never to return to college at that place, and the school was not helpfull in finding him, and so in an earthly sense, he got away with it..........BUT.......Let us not classify all gays under the same banner. One of them was a very good friend of mine for a time and another one only escaped a lot of pain and blood loss by hiding. I am not two different Joes, but they are two different gays.

It is a Chirstian virtue to love one's enemies, and an act of stupidity to pretend that they are your friends.

So, who do we think sued the baker?

Is it group one or group two?

Assuming, as I do, that it is group two, how much do you think they stand to gain from that action? In the long run?..........Yeah, me too.........Joe


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> Maybe because porn isn't medicinal? At least not in any official studies I've seen...


It might be a local thing but around my area I haven't seen them around the hospital s or doctors offices either..... usually they hit grocery stores.


----------



## MJsLady

YH he said it to more than one. 
It is possible to love an enemy and still not approve of what they do. 
Wise as serpents harmless as doves.
As I said we have a rule book to follow.


----------



## Paumon

MJsLady said:


> YH he said it to more than one.
> It is possible to love an enemy and still not approve of what they do.
> Wise as serpents harmless as doves.
> As I said we have a rule book to follow.


When you say rule book I'm guessing you're referring to the bible? I'm only quoting you because you mentioned a rule book that has to be followed but you don't have to answer the questions, the questions are directed at anyone who wishes to answer.

So serious questions here. Besides homosexuality, does the rule book have a long list of other deadly sins that cannot be tolerated in others? Now I already know about Moses 10 commandments that are listed, and I know about the "7 Deadly Sins" which are wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony. 

I know from the Book of Proverbs about the 7 sins that are "an abomination unto the Lord" which are: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plots, feet that are swift to run into mischief, a deceitful witness that utters lies and one who sows discord among his brethren. 

Then there's the longer list from Galatians which is adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, vainglory, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance (what is variance?), emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like".

What am I missing? What else is there to add to the above lists to make a complete list of all the deadly sins that must be disapproved of and are reason for denying service in a business?

I'm thinking about all those other states that have proposed or are in the process of drawing up other bills to be proposed that are similar to the vetoed Arizona bill - if any of them are passed and then more states get similar bills passed to deny service to customers based on religious grounds does that mean that:

- if a 500 pound man with a chocolate ice cream stain on his lips seeks service in a bakery shop can he be denied service because of gluttony?

- if an impersonator looking like Dolly Parton decked out all over in real gemstones and silks seeks service in a jewelery store can she be denied service because of her vainglory, emulation of a celebrity and having a proud look about her?

- if a ditch digger with sweaty skin and a strong smell of earth and too much deodorant seeks service in a convenience store for milk as he's on his way home after work can he be denied service because of uncleanness or he smells not so good?

- if a woman goes into a grocery store and fills up a bunch of shopping carts with all the bread on all the store shelves can she be denied service because of greed?

- if a stranger seeks service in a computer store and the store proprietor doesn't like the look of him will the customer have to be able to provide proof that he is not guilty of fornication, sorcery, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like" before he is approved for service?

Just to name a few. I'm sure lots of other example and excuses can be come up with.

Okay, I know this all sounds silly (at least it does to me) but it's not really silly because it could happen and it leaves me asking where will the lines get drawn on who gets to pay their good money and get good service and who doesn't in accord with whatever the business proprietor decides is or is not against their religious rule book?

I wear items of clothing and natures adornments and jewellery that might be interpreted by a religious person as being indicative of spiritual beliefs that are different from Christianity. What is a Christian person's appearance and behaviour supposed to be like in order to pass Christian muster to get service in a business and not be denied for religious purposes? 

As a frequent visitor and money spender in the states should I avoid those states that are pushing to pass those bills because I probably won't get served in them because I might not look and behave in a manner expected of a Christian?


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> What is a Christian person's appearance and behaviour supposed to be like in order to pass Christian muster to get service in a business and not be denied for religious purposes?
> 
> As a frequent visitor and money spender in the states should I avoid those states that are pushing to pass those bills because I probably won't get served in them because I might not look and behave in a manner expected of a Christian?


Strawman again. :catfight:


----------



## notwyse

So back to that bill....anyone besides me attempt to read it? It sort of states that an individual or business can deny service by claiming religious beliefs whether conventional to their religion or not. It is a protection from being sued. So. Consider a private hospital. What if they don't think you need a service because of whatever reason. They only have to state it was against their religious beliefs and you would have no legal recourse. So your 9 year old is raped. Pregnant. Too small to survive the delivery....you all know where I am going with this. As it stands each case is heard on an individual basis. While gay persons would perhaps be affected... So could we all. So. Florida's problems with the stand your ground laws should be an eye opener to the potential pitfalls. Where I live the local flight for life is a private company... And so is one ambulance service. And I live in Arizona.


----------



## Vash

We could play the "what ifs" all day.


----------



## mmoetc

What if, as Governor Brewer suggested, the Arizona legislature concentrated on fixing actual problems.


----------



## MJsLady

Pauman, first of all let go of this 7 deadly sins nonsense. 
Death is separation from God, ALL sin is thus deadly.
This whole 7 deadly sins thing is a religious idea not a biblical one. 
As for "sin lists" you left out Romans. 
As to the root statement. According to the criteria of freedom this country was founded on, all the above shopkeepers have the freedom, or right if you prefer, to choose whether or not to sell to the stated people. Regardless of their religion or Faith based beliefs. 

Now as to your specific people. 
For the woman, how is the shopkeeper to know she is not using that bread to make sandwiches for the homeless? Just because she doesn't gush out her intent doesn't mean it is sinful.

Just because a large man seeks food does not make him a glutton. 

We are told more than once not to judge the person by the outside. The pharisees did that. Christ said they washed the outside of the bowl ignoring the filth on the inside. 




As to whether you should avoid states that violate your conscience, yes you should.:lookout:


----------



## Evons hubby

MJsLady said:


> YH he said it to more than one.
> It is possible to love an enemy and still not approve of what they do.
> Wise as serpents harmless as doves.
> As I said we have a rule book to follow.


I agree with you completely... one can hate the sin and still love the sinner... just like Jesus does. One does not need to commit the sin while providing a service to the sinner either. A cake is just a cake...no more sinful than shoe. Would it be an act of love to help the same feller to find a job? What about refusing emergency care if he was in a traffic accident? Or would these things violate your beliefs?


----------



## MJsLady

Why do I need to know one is gay?
Why is it my business?
What is the motivation to tell me?
I don't go into a shoe store and say I want to buy a pair of shoes and btw I am straight. Nor would I go to apply for a job and add on the application, I am a straight female. 



As far as rendering aide, no it wouldn't violate my beliefs. Why?? Because how better to show some one Christ than by helping them? Once a person is dead it is too late to lead them to the throne of God. 

Now if they refused my help then yes I would leave, and alert those whose help they may accept of their need.


----------



## Vash

mmoetc said:


> What if, as Governor Brewer suggested, the Arizona legislature concentrated on fixing actual problems.


Protecting someone's 1st amendment rights isn't an actual problem?


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> Protecting someone's 1st amendment rights isn't an actual problem?


From what I gather this bill would have opened up the potential for many folks first amendment rights to be violated. Something about making it legal to discriminate against folks based upon their religious beliefs.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> From what I gather this bill would have opened up the potential for many folks first amendment rights to be violated. Something about making it legal to discriminate against folks based upon their religious beliefs.


If the people being "discriminated against" can still freely practice their religion, then it isn't a 1st amendment issue. Perhaps a civil rights issue.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> If the people being "discriminated against" can still freely practice their religion, then it isn't a 1st amendment issue. Perhaps a civil rights issue.


Cantell v Connecticut sorta puts the issue back into the first amendment...via the fourteenth. State legislatures are now required to follow the first amendment rules that originally only applied to the US Congress. It is an interesting situation at best. .. considering that the first amendment is self defeating by Its own wording. Its one of those issues best resolved by common sense and basic respect... don't discriminate against folks with different views than your own... its tacky at best... and often illegal.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> don't discriminate against folks with different views than your own...


Shouldn't that go both ways? (No pun intended)


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> Shouldn't that go both ways? (No pun intended)


Yep.  I recall building an addition on a baptist church many years ago.... I charged them the exact same rates as I did the farmer I built the hog pens for... all I could get.


----------



## mmoetc

Vash said:


> Protecting someone's 1st amendment rights isn't an actual problem?


Since there wasn't one documented case in the state of Arizona of anyone facing any of the issues postulated I'd suggest it was a mythical problem.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> Since there wasn't one documented case in the state of Arizona of anyone facing any of the issues postulated I'd suggest it was a mythical problem.


But that mythical problem has created quite a tsunami in this teapot. Not to worry, though, since capitalism will subsume this entire brouhaha much as it has subsumed other much ado about nothing and make it into a mere artifice of cartoonish proportions. 

Soon enough will their wax wings melt before the flames of hell and most of those who demand things that could never be will fall, deflated and disappointed.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> So you get to decide who is Christian and who is not? You can't be a Christian if you do something that is considered a sin? I guess there are no Christians then. I guess that no Christians ever sued for their rights under the constitution, religious or not religious


Anyone can decide who and who isn't a Christian. All they have to do is compare the sample to the standard. Think about it this way. A friend of yours comes over with a new dog and starts bragging how its a pure bred beagle. Yet the dog is 26" tall, it has a 'boxed' nose, it is wider in the chest than the hips and is solid black. Are you going to agree that its a beagle?

Now say you have someone who claims to be a Christian but he tells you about how last week he cheated a costumer and next week he's going to short another one. How he almost got into trouble because his wife almost caught him coming out of his girlfriend's house. In while telling these stories he uses language which would make a sailor blush. Are you going to agree the guy is a Christian?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Lots of interpretations of what those words convey. That is why there are many different Christian denominations. So forgive me if I don,t think you are the authority on what being Christian is to all Christian's.


Not quite. Example, to be baptized does it require you to be fully immersed under water? Some denominations believe that without full immersion you are not really baptized and others which don't. That doesn't mean not being fully immersed doesn't make you a Christian after all there is nothing in the Bible which even requires a Christan to be baptized.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Yet, someone here is deciding what and who a Christian is instead of leaving it up to God.


We are told specifically to judge those who call themselves Christians. We are to judge them by the standards given to us in the Bible. And we are even told how to deal with those who claim the name of Christ but are not living their life the way He said they were.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Before the admins close this thread I just have a couple things I would like to say.
> 
> I think it is very sad that our government ever needed to write any anti discrimination laws.... are we really such dismal human beings that we cannot love and embrace the next feller just because he happens to be "different" than ourselves?
> 
> I have been a Christian for over fifty years and the Christ I know and love would bake the cake that so many here are so offended over. Pretty sure He will forgive a gay couple of their sins just the same as He will my own.


God will forgive if the sinner asks to be forgiven. He's not going to forgive someone who spends their entire life spitting in His face and ignoring His rules. Remember God is loving but He is also just and vengeful.


----------



## watcher

Vash said:


> For the record, I married a Canadian.:spinsmiley:


Are you bragging or looking for sympathy? :dance:


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is what He told one sinner for sure and certain... but He also said we are to love one another.... and especially our enemies. Discriminating against someone is not loving them. There is another player in Gods game.. and he thrives on hatred and discord. I would far rather play it Christ's way and love the sinner than feed Satan with hatred.


And holding their hands while they walk the road to Hell and take others with them is loving them how???


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> :bored: I guess my post went over your head. I have the right to post in an open forum as well.


I've said for a long time we need a sarcasm smiley.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> I've said for a long time we need a sarcasm smiley.


There is one -->


----------



## 65284

watcher said:


> I have been following the up roar about AZ "allowing" privately owned businesses to have the "right" to decide who they sell or not sell to and it has me thinking again.
> 
> 
> Where does the government get the power to tell a private citizen how to run their busiiness.


 


I haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if already mentioned. Someone, Joe Stalin perhaps, once said all power comes from the barrel of a gun. He was absolutely correct, and the govt has the most, biggest and baddest guns and willing, eager triggermen.


If you don't believe it try refusing an order from your govt. and I assure that sooner or later a bunch of badges packing heat will show up on your door step. Resist and they will shoot you.

If you don't believe that think about Ruby Ridge and Lon Horiuchi murdering Vicky Weaver in cold blood while she was carriyng nothing but a baby. And the slimeball got away with it. I suspect they have pleny of other hit men/assassins 
like Horiuchi chompin' at the bit ready to kill on command.

Oh yes, that's exactly where your government gets the power to do just as they ---- well please.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> And holding their hands while they walk the road to Hell and take others with them is loving them how???


Holding their hand gives one a much better chance to guide them away from the path they are on than does kicking them on down the their road... honey catches more bees than vinegar so I have heard.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> God will forgive if the sinner asks to be forgiven. He's not going to forgive someone who spends their entire life spitting in His face and ignoring His rules. Remember God is loving but He is also just and vengeful.


Interesting my book says that " any man" can be saved... no matter what his sins have been. Christ paid the price already.


----------



## Tango

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Christ


Amen.


----------



## Tango

By some accounts there are as many as 20 or perhaps more human genders. Its not just girly girl and boy boy. If one is born with a certain gender, like a tomboy that doesn't ever make the adolescent transition to girly girl it is, most assuredly, not by choice. Chinese people do not choose to be Chinese. Chinese are born Chinese. It is the same with gender and sexual identity. You are born with it. You can deny it but you can't change it. My heart just opens when I see a person that is one of the uncommon genders, like a very pronounced boy girl. How hard it must be for them to face the world each day.

But going back to the cake.... what would have happened if the person getting married or their helper, would have simply specified the color and size and shape of the cake and then put two female figures or two male figures on the top later on their own? Why does this have to be so in your face? 

A person secure in their faith, steady in their faith, with a faith that reflects outwardly what is truth inwardly, they brighten the world around them. It is a natural reflection and not by choice or will power. They cannot darken the world or create discord regardless of the circumstances- whether it be in the Congo or in Arizona. No signs, no laws, no religion needed. So I don't think this is really about faith. It is about intolerance and it is on both sides of the equation.


----------



## homstdr74

Tango said:


> But going back to the cake.... what would have happened if the person getting married or their helper, would have simply specified the color and size and shape of the cake and then put two female figures or two male figures on the top later on their own? Why does this have to be so in your face?


Think of the difference between, say, most Methodists and most Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not advocating for or trying to demean either, but the JW people are famous for getting "in your face" by showing up unannounced at many people's doors at the most inopportune moment. 

Again, if I've insulted anyone, that was not my intention, and perhaps the use of those two sects was not as analogous as it could have been. I'm just trying to show that some people or groups of people within minorities of people will go to greater extremes than others, and sometimes that makes the whole lot look very bad to the majority.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> Think of the difference between, say, most Methodists and most Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not advocating for or trying to demean either, but the JW people are famous for getting "in your face" by showing up unannounced at many people's doors at the most inopportune moment.
> 
> Again, if I've insulted anyone, that was not my intention, and perhaps the use of those two sects was not as analogous as it could have been. I'm just trying to show that some people or groups of people within minorities of people will go to greater extremes than others, and sometimes that makes the whole lot look very bad to the majority.


I'm not sure which sect of Christians it was..... but can you imagine waking up some morning with 40/50 thousand guys at your door insisting you convert to their brand of religion... all of them packing heavy armor and weapons! The crusades gave a lot of Christians a black eye for centuries... then that whole Spanish inquisition took thing... believe my way or you will be tortured to death.


----------



## dixiegal62

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not sure which sect of Christians it was..... but can you imagine waking up some morning with 40/50 thousand guys at your door insisting you convert to their brand of religion... all of them packing heavy armor and weapons! The crusades gave a lot of Christians a black eye for centuries... then that whole Spanish inquisition took thing... believe my way or you will be tortured to death.


 
Kind of like waking up in the middle of the night to the democratic KKK's hauling you out of bed and burning a cross or hanging you for being black.


----------



## willow_girl

> Think of the difference between, say, most Methodists and most Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not advocating for or trying to demean either, but the JW people are famous for getting "in your face" by showing up unannounced at many people's doors at the most inopportune moment.


Funny you should mention that ... the JWs paid us a visit yesterday morning. Numb was in the middle of ripping out some ductwork, and I wasn't dressed yet, so he told them to maybe stop by another day.

I warned them, "You can argue religion with him all day long ... you won't win!"

We'll see if they're brave enough to come back. ound:


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not sure which sect of Christians it was..... but can you imagine waking up some morning with 40/50 thousand guys at your door insisting you convert to their brand of religion... all of them packing heavy armor and weapons! The crusades gave a lot of Christians a black eye for centuries... then that whole Spanish inquisition took thing... believe my way or you will be tortured to death.


So, your analogy to what I posted is sort of like muslim terrorists yelling how their "god" is good and flying fuel-laden passenger jets into tall office buildings full of people, killing 2,606 human beings in the name of their "god".


----------



## homstdr74

willow_girl said:


> Funny you should mention that ... the JWs paid us a visit yesterday morning. Numb was in the middle of ripping out some ductwork, and I wasn't dressed yet, so he told them to maybe stop by another day.
> 
> I warned them, "You can argue religion with him all day long ... you won't win!"
> 
> We'll see if they're brave enough to come back. ound:


Once when we had a serious plumbing problem that involved an underground pipe break and I was in the middle of digging that out, two JW people showed up and started preaching to me. I told them I was willing to discuss things but needed to get this done, then handed each of them a digging implement so we could discuss it over some work. Never before have I seen such a hasty retreat, why, you'd think they had an aversion to work or something! They never did come back, for some reason.

OTOH, several years later a farmer, who was also a JW person, would stop by on his rounds and we'd talk about almost everything but religion. It was a genuine pleasure to have him stop by and chat. Oh, sure, he'd tell me about his church and how he liked it, but not the doctrine, and I'd do the same, but mostly we discussed the weather, the crops, politics, and such. As I said, I always welcomed his visits. 

There is a vast difference in human beings, and that is becoming completely unrecognized in the political mishmash that some seem to believe is democracy. Many just "take sides" and forget their individuality, yea, even their humanity, when it becomes other than human and only "my team, my team".


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> So, your analogy to what I posted is sort of like muslim terrorists yelling how their "god" is good and flying fuel-laden passenger jets into tall office buildings full of people, killing 2,606 human beings in the name of their "god".


Sump thin like that.. another several million folks get the black eye for the actions of the few... what was it 27 or28 individuals caused millions of nonviolent innicent Muslims a tremendous amount of grief and shame.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sump thin like that.. another several million folks get the black eye for the actions of the few... what was it 27 or28 individuals caused millions of nonviolent innicent Muslims a tremendous amount of grief and shame.


MMMmmmmmmno. I doubt that ALL of the 1.6 BILLION muslims are nonviolent innocents. Remember the cheering in the streets of the Mideast when the Twin Towers fell?


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> MMMmmmmmmno. I doubt that ALL of the 1.6 BILLION muslims are nonviolent innocents. Remember the cheering in the streets of the Mideast when the Twin Towers fell?


No I don't recall that... but it would come as no great surprise either. I am sure there are many Muslims who have certain issues with the west... just as there many Christians who harbour issues toward Muslims. It does seem sad that all of these people cannot seem to get along with each other.


----------



## Paumon

homstdr74 said:


> MMMmmmmmmno. I doubt that ALL of the 1.6 BILLION muslims are nonviolent innocents. *Remember the cheering in the streets of the Mideast when the Twin Towers fell?*


I don't remember that. I've heard it rumoured on forums like this one but never seen factual evidence of it. I never saw mention of it on the international news broadcasts and newspaper reports at the time and believe me, our international news coverage up here is truly excellent. Where can I find factual information that it actually happened?


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> I don't remember that. I've heard it rumoured on forums like this one but never seen factual evidence of it. I never saw mention of it on the international news broadcasts and newspaper reports at the time and believe me, our international news coverage up here is truly excellent. Where can I find factual information that it actually happened?


Google or Bing would be helpful!


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> I don't remember that. I've heard it rumoured on forums like this one but never seen factual evidence of it. I never saw mention of it on the international news broadcasts and newspaper reports at the time and believe me, our international news coverage up here is truly excellent. Where can I find factual information that it actually happened?


 
https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/flashback-muslims-cheered-911-attacks-video/

2 videos from 2 separate news channels.

"_Many Muslims celebrated on 9/11. Many continue to celebrate. Some even want a huge mosque at Ground Zero. Never forget. Never submit."_


----------



## Paumon

I did do a search on it already. All the sites I found were not credible or authoritative sites though, all of them are tin-foil conspiracy sites and they're all reporting on the same video. Those two video broadcasts shown on that link above (which also is not a credible site - it's just another tin-foil site) are the exact same people on one street in one town. I did find one wiki report about that video indicating that those children and the adults flashing the victory sign had been bribed and incited to celebrate something unrelated to the twin towers attack:

_"Annette KrÃ¼ger Spitta of the __ARD__'s (German public broadcasting) TV magazine Panorama states that footage not aired shows that the street surrounding the celebration in Jerusalem is quiet. Furthermore, she states that a man in a white T-shirt incited the children and gathered people together for the shot. The Panorama report, dated September 20, 2001, quotes Communications Professor Martin LÃ¶ffelholz explaining that in the images one sees jubilant Palestinian children and several adults but there is no indication that their pleasure is related to the attack. The woman seen cheering (Nawal Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and was frightened when she saw the pictures on television afterward."_

So if that's the case, I can understand how people on one street in one town might have been bribed by jihadists to celebrate so that the video could be released for propaganda purposes to demoralize Americans - propaganda is an old trick used everywhere by all nations. But I still haven't found any other information that confirms that muslims all over the middle east were celebrating. I did find much more information that states otherwise with statements from officials all over the ME world condemning the attack on the twin towers.

I'm still open and willing to consider more reliable and authoritative evidence though if someone can produce it.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> I did do a search on it already. All the sites I found were not credible or authoritative sites though, all of them are tin-foil conspiracy sites and they're all reporting on the same video. Those two video broadcasts shown on that link above (which also is not a credible site - it's just another tin-foil site) are the exact same people on one street in one town. I did find one wiki report about that video indicating that those children and the adults flashing the victory sign had been bribed and incited to celebrate something unrelated to the twin towers attack:
> 
> _"Annette KrÃ¼ger Spitta of the __ARD__'s (German public broadcasting) TV magazine Panorama states that footage not aired shows that the street surrounding the celebration in Jerusalem is quiet. Furthermore, she states that a man in a white T-shirt incited the children and gathered people together for the shot. The Panorama report, dated September 20, 2001, quotes Communications Professor Martin LÃ¶ffelholz explaining that in the images one sees jubilant Palestinian children and several adults but there is no indication that their pleasure is related to the attack. The woman seen cheering (Nawal Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and was frightened when she saw the pictures on television afterward."_
> 
> So if that's the case, I can understand how people on one street in one town might have been bribed by jihadists to celebrate so that the video could be released for propaganda purposes to demoralize Americans - propaganda is an old trick used everywhere by all nations. But I still haven't found any other information that confirms that muslims all over the middle east were celebrating. I did find much more information that states otherwise with statements from officials all over the ME world condemning the attack on the twin towers.
> 
> I'm still open and willing to consider more reliable and authoritative evidence though if someone can produce it.


 
one report was from a liberal station msnbc the other from a conservative station fox news.... both sides reported it but I can understand why you would choose to say not credible because it flies in the face or your image of Muslims you want to believe. Now if it had been Christain's I'm pretty sure you'd accept it as truth because that would support what you believe.

" So if that's the case, I can understand how people on one street in one town might have been bribed by jihadists to celebrate so that the video could be released for propaganda purposes to demoralize Americans - propaganda is an old trick used everywhere by all nations. But I still haven't found any other information that confirms that muslims all over the middle east were celebrating. I did find much more information that states otherwise with statements from officials all over the ME world condemning the attack on the twin towers."

Yeah you don't need a tin foil hat for THAT theory.


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> one report was from a liberal station msnbc the other from a conservative station fox news.... both sides reported it but I can understand why you would choose to say not credible because it flies in the face or your image of Muslims you want to believe. Now if it had been Christain's I'm pretty sure you'd accept it as truth because that would support what you believe.


MSNBC and Fox were both reporting on the same video that was released of the same bribed people on one street in one town. One video released by one person for propaganda purposes is not good enough for me. I feel that a single propaganda video should not be good enough for anyone, but apparently it is. 

My refusal to blindly accept the one and only single piece of propaganda has nothing to do with my image of muslims and christians. I actually consider them to both be the same - namely each are representatives of their given religions and each are as good and as bad as the other in their own ways. I feel that way about all religions so that allows me to not show favouritism or be biased about one religion over any other religion. All religions are the same in my estimation.


----------



## dixiegal62

This one might interest you. I guess the kids came up with this all by themselves.


http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/03/01/291462/israel-celebrates-successful-911attacks/


----------



## Paumon

Real freedom is not freedom of religion. Real freedom is freedom from religion. Religion is a self-imposed shackle manufactured by humans. Nobody actually needs it but humans have tricked themselves into thinking they need it.

Just think about it, it there was real freedom and real freedom from religion there would never have been a need for this topic.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> Real freedom is not freedom of religion. Real freedom is freedom from religion. Religion is a self-imposed shackle manufactured by humans. Nobody actually needs it but humans have tricked themselves into thinking they need it.
> 
> Just think about it, it there was real freedom and real freedom from religion there would never have been a need for this topic.


Annie Laurie Gaylor... now THAT is a reliable source :rotfl:


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> This one might interest you. I guess the kids came up with this all by themselves.
> 
> 
> http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/03/01/291462/israel-celebrates-successful-911attacks/


It means nothing unless you let it have meaning to you. Somebody else knows what your weakness is and you let them take advantage of your weakness if you get upset over a stupid picture like that.


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> Annie Laurie Gaylor... now THAT is a reliable source :rotfl:


I don't who that person is.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> It means nothing unless you let it have meaning to you. Somebody else knows what your weakness is and you let them take advantage of your weakness if you get upset over a stupid picture like that.


 


Bless your little heart Paumon, you are a piece of work I'll give you that. There are none so blind.....


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> I don't who that person is.


 
Funny, you paraphrase her so well.


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> Bless your little heart Paumon, you are a piece of work I'll give you that. There are none so blind.....


Patronizing condescension, like flattery, will get you nowhere with me. :gaptooth:

I had to go look up that woman to find out who she is. She is younger than me so perhaps _she_ has been paraphrasing _me_. I didn't know there was such a thing as the Freedom from Religion Foundation so now thanks to you I've discovered something new to learn about and possibly to promote. :thumb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Laurie_Gaylor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> Patronizing condescension, like flattery, will get you nowhere with me. :gaptooth:
> 
> I had to go look up that woman to find out who she is. She is younger than me so perhaps _she_ has been paraphrasing _me_. I didn't know there was such a thing as the Freedom from Religion Foundation so now thanks to you I've discovered something new to learn about. :thumb:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Laurie_Gaylor
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation


I'm sure you'll find you both have a lot in common.:thumb:


----------



## Paumon

I think you're right. She sounds like a woman after my own heart. I'll have to see if any of her books are in the library. The "_Women Without Superstition: No Gods - No Masters"_ book sounds particularly interesting.


"Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the FFRF, is the author of _Women Without Superstition: No Gods - No Masters_ and the nonfiction book on clergy pedophilia scandals _Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children_ (out of print) and editor of the anthology _Woe to the Women_. She edited the FFRF newspaper _Freethought Today_ until July, 2008. Her husband, Dan Barker, author of _Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist_, _Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of Americaâs Leading Atheists_, _The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God_ and _Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children_, is a musician and songwriter, a former Pentecostal Christian minister, and co-president of the FFRF."


----------



## Evons hubby

I was not surprised by the videos nor do I doubt the authenticity.... the Palestinians as a whole have not exactly been on the receiving end of the US best intentions for qui e a while... since we tend to support Israel in their dealings with them. Probably far more a political thing than one about their faith.


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> *I don't remember that*. I've heard it rumoured on forums like this one but never seen factual evidence of it. I never saw mention of it on the international news broadcasts and newspaper reports at the time and believe me, our international news coverage up here is truly excellent. Where can I find factual information that it actually happened?


Of course not. You have a selective memory:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k[/ame]

But it's a fact.....


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> MSNBC and Fox were both reporting on the same video that was released of the same bribed people on one street in one town. One video released by one person for propaganda purposes is not good enough for me. I feel that a single propaganda video should not be good enough for anyone, but apparently it is.
> 
> My refusal to blindly accept the one and only single piece of propaganda has nothing to do with my image of muslims and christians. I actually consider them to both be the same - namely each are representatives of their given religions and each are as good and as bad as the other in their own ways. I feel that way about all religions so that allows me to not show favouritism or be biased about one religion over any other religion. *All religions are the same in my estimation*.


And that is what is called Syncretism; some estimate it is a religion unto itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> Real freedom is not freedom of religion. Real freedom is freedom from religion. Religion is a self-imposed shackle manufactured by humans. Nobody actually needs it but humans have tricked themselves into thinking they need it.
> 
> Just think about it, it there was real freedom and real freedom from religion there would never have been a need for this topic.


Well, then, perhaps you should stop preaching your variety of religious fervor in which you believe so fanatically.


----------



## Paumon

homstdr74 said:


> And that is what is called Syncretism; some estimate it is a religion unto itself:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism


That video you posted is the same one that Dixiegal posted the link to. It's the one I was talking about the people on the one street in the one town having been being bribed to celebrate. It's the only video that was ever released to all the various news medias. That's why I think it was mostly propaganda. If there had been a lot more videos of the same celebrations taking place in many towns then I'd be more willing to believe that many people in the mid east were happy about the twin towers attack.

Syncretism is not really applicable to me. Syncretism is blending or fusion of diverse religious beliefs and may be applicable to someone believing in the need for religions. I guess in itself it might be considered a form of religion. I don't think it's a good word for me since I don't believe in any religions whether they're blended or not. I'm totally anti-religion, I think all religions are wrong for mankind, some are plain evil tyranny and all religions are just a form of politics that are not necessary for anyone to know God. Religion isn't about God. God doesn't need men to be religious and God didn't invent religions or rule books. Men invented religions and rule books in the names of their Gods in order to maintain control over other men. As long as there are religions remaining in the world no men shall ever have personal freedom nor have a true understanding of God.



homstdr74 said:


> Well, then, perhaps *you should* *stop preaching* your variety of religious fervor in which you believe so fanatically.


Stop? There we go with that being told to "shut up" thing again. Why? Why should_ I_ "shut up" and not speak of what I believe but it's okay for _you_ and other religionists to speak of what you believe and quote your scriptures out of all your rule books and judge other people yet you expect to not be told to shut up? 

Are you afraid of what I say? Are you afraid it's the truth? Are you afraid that other people might listen favourably to what I say and you want to prevent other people from hearing what I say because it doesn't fit in with your own personal religious agenda? So you tell me to shut up. 

I don't like your double standards. Don't tell me to shut up. I'll shut up when I'm ready to or when religionists all shut up too.


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> That video you posted is the same one that Dixiegal posted the link to. It's the one I was talking about the people on the one street in the one town having been being bribed to celebrate. It's the only video that was ever released to all the various news medias. That's why I think it was mostly propaganda. If there had been a lot more videos of the same celebrations taking place in many towns then I'd be more willing to believe that many people in the mid east were happy about the twin towers attack.


You can ridicule facts as propaganda, but the fact is that the sources upon which you rely are the propaganda sources: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. 
http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/04/07/why-did-so-many-muslims-seem-to-celebrate-911




> Originally posted by *Paumon*:
> *Syncretism is not really applicable to me*. Syncretism is blending or fusion of diverse religious beliefs and may be applicable to someone believing in the need for religions. I guess in itself it might be considered a form of religion. I don't think it's a good word for me since I don't believe in any religions whether they're blended or not. I'm totally anti-religion, I think all religions are wrong for mankind, some are plain evil tyranny and all religions are just a form of politics that are not necessary for anyone to know God. Religion isn't about God. God doesn't need men to be religious and God didn't invent religions or rule books. Men invented religions and rule books in the names of their Gods in order to maintain control over other men. As long as there are religions remaining in the world no men shall ever have personal freedom nor have a true understanding of God.


Yes it is. Syncretism is not exclusively mainstream religions, but a combining of various ideas and ideals into one thought process, which is what you have made into a religion. You admit that you think religion is only political, well----? What is it that you think you are doing with your political belief that opposes someone elseâs?



> Originally posted by *Paumon*:
> Stop? There we go with that being told to "shut up" thing again. Why? Why should_ I_ "shut up" and not speak of what I believe but it's okay for _you_ and other religionists to speak of what you believe and quote your scriptures out of all your rule books and judge other people yet you expect to not be told to shut up?
> 
> Are you afraid of what I say? Are you afraid it's the truth? Are you afraid that other people might listen favourably to what I say and you want to prevent other people from hearing what I say because it doesn't fit in with your own personal religious agenda? So you tell me to shut up.
> 
> I don't like your double standards. Don't tell me to shut up. I'll shut up when I'm ready to or when religionists all shut up too.


So youâre just lookinâ for a fight, basically. If youâll actually *read *what I wrote, it was in reference to what you had posted, which was â_Religion is a self-imposed shackle manufactured by humans. Nobody actually needs it but humans have tricked themselves into thinking they need it.â _And that describes what you have written in defense of your religion. I did not tell you to âshut upâ, but you insisted on persisting with your Saul Alinsky diatribe against religion-in-general, not paying any heed to the actual statement but making it up as you go along. Of course I donât fear what you state, why would I? Iâve had the bull by the horns ( sometimes literally, BTW) enough times in my long life that I find it difficult to understand people who have fear of anything or anyone.

Double standard? Hilariousâ¦..


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Holding their hand gives one a much better chance to guide them away from the path they are on than does kicking them on down the their road... honey catches more bees than vinegar so I have heard.


You tell them the truth, you live the truth and they make their choice. There's nothing you nor I can do to change that. You can't "hate" someone into Hell any more than you can "love" them into Heaven.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting my book says that " any man" can be saved... no matter what his sins have been. Christ paid the price already.


Anyone can but most will not be saved because they *chose* not to ask. 

You can't spit in God's face all your life then when you are standing before Him being judged on your actions say "Oh, sorry about that spitting stuff." and He's going to say "Oh really? Then come on in and welcome to Heaven!"


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not sure which sect of Christians it was..... but can you imagine waking up some morning with 40/50 thousand guys at your door insisting you convert to their brand of religion... all of them packing heavy armor and weapons! The crusades gave a lot of Christians a black eye for centuries... then that whole Spanish inquisition took thing... believe my way or you will be tortured to death.


And which do you think those people are going to hear at judgment:

_Well done, good and faithful servant! 

_Or
_
I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â_


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Real freedom is not freedom of religion. Real freedom is freedom from religion. Religion is a self-imposed shackle manufactured by humans. Nobody actually needs it but humans have tricked themselves into thinking they need it.
> 
> Just think about it, it there was real freedom and real freedom from religion there would never have been a need for this topic.


In real freedom an atheist has just as much right to refuse to serve/sell to someone wearing a cross or yamaka or kirpan or taqiyah as a Muslim would have to refuse to serve someone who owned a liquor store or was carrying a dog.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> You tell them the truth, you live the truth and they make their choice. There's nothing you nor I can do to change that. You can't "hate" someone into Hell any more than you can "love" them into Heaven.


I will have disagree. Most of today's faithful did not just hear the word and believed... like teaching a child it takes a bit of time. You would not lead a child by the hand across a hi way... explain the danger and send them across town on their own. You keep on leading them until they have actually learned. At least that's the way I taught my kids.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> And which do you think those people are going to hear at judgment:
> 
> _Well done, good and faithful servant!
> 
> _Or
> _
> I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â_


I think you are getting it now... which of these do you think those who treat sinners poorly are going to hear?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will have disagree. Most of today's faithful did not just hear the word and believed... like teaching a child it takes a bit of time. You would not lead a child by the hand across a hi way... explain the danger and send them across town on their own. You keep on leading them until they have actually learned. At least that's the way I taught my kids.


As an old preacher said one time; A lot of people are being loved right to Hell.

One other thing. There's nothing you can do which will send a person to Hell any more than you can do something to get them into Heaven.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> As an old preacher said one time; A lot of people are being loved right to Hell.
> 
> One other thing. There's nothing you can do which will send a person to Hell any more than you can do something to get them into Heaven.


Hmmmm makes one wonder why there are so many missions and missionary's try to gain converts. If one can't help a sinner to find the road to salvation... why bother trying? Perhaps Gideon should go get his bibles back that he left in them hotel rooms.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think you are getting it now... which of these do you think those who treat sinners poorly are going to hear?


Depends on just what God views as poor treatment. From my reading if you fail to tell someone they are sinning you are treating them poorly. 

Do you remember what Paul said about eating meat from idol sacrifices? He said, paraphrased here, if you are told it is from a sacrifice you should not eat it. Not because it is a sin but because it may cause a weak Christian to stumble. It has nothing to do with the sinner but with the faithful.

Now don't you think you could change eating meat from sacrifices to baking a cake for a gay wedding?

But none of this has ANYTHING to do with my original point. Its not about being a good Christian, Muslim or atheist; its about the freedom to run your private life the way you think it should be ran not the way the government tells you.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmmm makes one wonder why there are so many missions and missionary's try to gain converts.


Because Christ has told us to spread the Word. But to be honest with you I don't remember Christ telling us to go forth and build missions and that would bring people to Him. IMO, a lot of the things people are doing to "bring people to Christ" is a waste of time and even worldly. Its like churches today think if they give away enough stuff they can buy people into believing. 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> If one can't help a sinner to find the road to salvation... why bother trying? Perhaps Gideon should go get his bibles back that he left in them hotel rooms.


There's a difference in showing someone the road and trying to drag them down it by their collar. We are told to give the message and if the person doesn't want to hear it to walk away. 

Also we are told everyone will be given the chance to know God. Do you think God is going to let someone go the Hell because he in the middle of Amazon jungle and no now has told him about God?


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> But none of this has ANYTHING to do with my original point. Its not about being a good Christian, Muslim or atheist; its about the *freedom to run your private life the way you think it should be ran not the way the government tells you*.


To answer that question - I don't think it's possible to have both full personal freedoms and government if you're going to live in society. You can have a state of anarchy with no government and deprive yourself of society to keep the full freedom to run your private life as you see fit; or you can have government rules and be a member of society with limited freedoms in your private life.

Can you explain how you think it may be possible to live in society and have both government and full personal private freedoms without causing offense to somebody else nor having somebody else cause offense to you? I just don't see how it can be possible without somebody's personal freedoms being infringed upon. 


I thought you might find the following information interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> To answer that question - I don't think it's possible to have both full personal freedoms and government if you're going to live in society. You can have a state of anarchy with no government and deprive yourself of society to keep the full freedom to run your private life as you see fit; or you can have government rules and be a member of society with limited freedoms in your private life.
> 
> Can you explain how you think it may be possible to live in society and have both government and full personal private freedoms without causing offense to somebody else nor having somebody else cause offense to you? I just don't see how it can be possible without somebody's personal freedoms being infringed upon.
> 
> 
> I thought you might find the following information interesting:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices


I have stated in other post that I accept that you can not have a complete right and/or freedom. The limits on all rights should be as small as possible and only limited when the exercise of your rights directly interfere with another's.

But rights have NOTHING to do with this. As I have pointed out time after time you have no right to anything which must first be taken from another. You have no right to force someone, either directly with a gun or indirectly with the government's gun, to make you a cake! It doesn't matter if the cake maker doesn't want to sell it to you because you are not willing to pay the price they want or if its because they think you are too ugly, not ugly enough, too tall, not tall enough, too light skinned, not light skinned enough, too dark skinned, not dark skinned enough, too religious or not religious enough. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO _*THEIR*_ CAKE.


----------



## Paumon

You have frequently mentioned "_freedom to run your private life the way you think it should be ran not the way the government tells you"_.

I think you need to make up your mind about the difference between freedom in private business versus freedom in public business. They are not both the same thing.

The business that you conduct privately without a business license allows you to deal with customers of your choice and be as elitist and discriminatory as you want. 

That's not the same thing as the business you conduct in public having a business license to deal with public customers. In public business with a business license if you're elitist and discriminatory about customers for whatever reason you won't stay in business for very long. Even without government intervention if you're discriminatory in public business then eventually somebody will find a way to put you out of business by causing you to lose your business license - or else - word will spread about your discriminatory practices, you'll get a bad reputation as an unfair or unethical person to deal with and then you'll just end up losing all of your customers. Which means you'll still be out of business.


----------



## homstdr74

Anyone see any parallels here?:

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church[/URL]

From the article: âThe Soviets' official religious stance was one of "religious freedom or tolerance", though the state established atheism as the only scientific truth. Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden and sometimes led to imprisonment.

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, *ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools*. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. The establishment of the gulags was an integral part of carrying out this objective as many Orthodox clergy and laymen were sent to camps like Svirlag and Solovki.

Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation, in order to force them give up their religious convictions.

*Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or used as warehouses, recreation centers, "museums of atheism", or even Gulags. It was impossible to build new churches.â *End of quotes.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union[/URL]

*From the article: âThus the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with universal atheism. The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.*

The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas *the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism*. *"Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. *The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. *Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited*. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes.

MarxistâLeninist atheism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion.â End of quotes.

Interesting how the people were âfree to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibitedâ.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> That's not the same thing as the business you conduct in public having a business license to deal with public customers. *In public business with a business license if you're elitist and discriminatory about customers for whatever reason you won't stay in business for very long.* Even without government intervention if you're discriminatory in public business then eventually somebody will find a way to put you out of business by causing you to lose your business license - or else - word will spread about your discriminatory practices, you'll get a bad reputation as an unfair or unethical person to deal with and then you'll just end up losing all of your customers. Which means you'll still be out of business.


Tell that to Abercrombie & Fitch.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> its about the freedom to run your private life the way you think it should be ran not the way the government tells you.


Right... and just how long do you think any one would be able to hold onto ANY freedom in this anarchist society? You are basically saying the guy with the biggest stick gets to make up new rules as he goes along.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Right... and just how long do you think any one would be able to hold onto ANY freedom in this anarchist society? *You are basically saying the guy with the biggest stick gets to make up new rules as he goes along*.


Or get some guys from 'the government' with big sticks to make up new rules for you as they go along.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> Or get some guys from 'the government' with big sticks to make up new rules for you as they go along.


Yep, anytime there is more than one human being living together... as a family, community or society, there is always going to be someone making rules... tis the nature of the beast. The tricky part is making sure those making the rules can also be held accountable by those they rule over. Our founding fathers put together a pretty good system when they set up our own government... by placing rules upon the rule makers, and protecting the basic rights and freedom of the common man.


----------



## painterswife

Every time I hear or read someone here in the US speak or write like the "Government" is the problem I roll my eyes.

The government took my freedom, the government takes my money, the government is ruining my life. This is a society and your fellow citizens are the ones who have decided what kind of society they want to live in. Don't like it get off your duff and work towards changing it. 

You don't like the balance of freedoms and laws that ensure you have those freedoms. Where is your tipping point? I know mine and it just may be different than yours. I don't care what you do in your personal life but if your personal choices impact too many in our society than I have a right to work towards creating laws against your personal choices. The USC works towards balancing those wants and rights. It will never make everyone happy but if we want to live in this society than that is the price we pay.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Every time I hear or read someone here in the US speak or write like the "Government" is the problem I roll my eyes.


A lot of the time the government is indeed the problem. This is usually due to an out of control government that does need to be reigned in. Does the number 17 trillion have any particular meaning to you? It should... because your personal share of that debt is well over 50 grand! Married? 100k per couple,,,, two kids? your family is over 200k in debt and climbing every day! Just the interest on that debt is enough to make ones eyes roll to the back of their head!


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not sure which sect of Christians it was..... but can you imagine waking up some morning with 40/50 thousand guys at your door insisting you convert to their brand of religion... all of them packing heavy armor and weapons! The crusades gave a lot of Christians a black eye for centuries... then that whole Spanish inquisition took thing... believe my way or you will be tortured to death.


The idea that the Christians woke up one morning and decided to go on a crusade is not at all true. When Islam, as soon as it was established, took off on a conquering binge like a house a fire, it had armies making forced conversions all over, pushing into Italy and almost all of the Iberian peninsula. 
A small part of the northern part of what is now Spain actually consolidated and converted to Christianity as much for political advantage to survive as for religious belief. The crusades were push back.
Why people have this great blank in their history about the period from the fall of the Roman empire in 3-400 AD til the start of the middle ages in about 1000AD, I don't know but there were plenty of non-christians around from Scandinavia to Spain to the whole world east of Italy. It was a battle ground for many religions from pagan to Islam at the end. It was a matter of survival to be a part of a winning religion and religion was used by all to tell friend from enemy.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, anytime there is more than one human being living together... as a family, community or society, there is always going to be someone making rules... tis the nature of the beast. The tricky part is making sure those making the rules can also be held accountable by those they rule over. Our founding fathers put together a pretty good system when they set up our own government... by placing rules upon the rule makers, and protecting the basic rights and freedom of the common man.


Oh? You really think it's that simple? That the very ideals of our Founders are still paramount in the minds of the bureaucracy? I wish.

http://co.quaker.org/Writings/SmedleyButler.htm

From the article: "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. *In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism*." End of quotes.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Every time I hear or read someone here in the US speak or write like the "Government" is the problem I roll my eyes.
> 
> The government took my freedom, the government takes my money, the government is ruining my life. This is a society and your fellow citizens are the ones who have decided what kind of society they want to live in. Don't like it get off your duff and work towards changing it.
> 
> You don't like the balance of freedoms and laws that ensure you have those freedoms. Where is your tipping point? I know mine and it just may be different than yours. I don't care what you do in your personal life*but if your personal choices impact too many in our society than I have a right to work towards creating laws against your personal choices. * The USC works towards balancing those wants and rights. It will never make everyone happy but if we want to live in this society than that is the price we pay.




And there it is, what I've been waiting to see, per my first post.


----------



## where I want to

farmrbrown said:


> And there it is, what I've been waiting to see, per my first post.


And what is the resolution?


----------



## farmrbrown

The resolution?
Very simple.
The question the OP asked was "Do you believe in personal freedom?"

The answer for some is, "No."





farmrbrown said:


> I'm interested in sitting back and reading some of the answers you get to that question, especially the honest ones.
> 
> *The correct answer of course is "yes", but when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, there is a majority of the population who would say, feel or secretly say "No."
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it isn't exclusively the so-called liberal left, who if they were true to their principles, would defend individual liberty.
> But the right side of the peanut gallery often chimes in with their 2 cents worth of opinion on how others should be legislated into thinking and acting the "right" way.:heh:
> 
> The solution to the dilemma that sparked this Arizona legislative sinkhole is obvious to me, and pointed out on the first page of this thread, I think.
> 
> I wouldn't say that rural Southerners are necessarily smarter than any others, but we have had the opportunity of finding ways around Federal interference on more than one occasion, so it's more a cultural thing.
> When I first started visiting the place I live now as a young adult, this was still a "dry" county. When i say dry, I mean not a drop.
> If you think that means there weren't places that you could drink alcohol, you'd be wrong.
> There was a variety of private clubs, exempt from any laws and whose membership was entirely up to the establishment. It was customary that only a member could sponsor a new member or have a guest admitted for the night.
> So, if you weren't straight, white and local, chances are you drove your hay self to the next town or did without. Too bad, that's what I did for a long time until I got to know some folks.
> So the easy solution is not to get a state issued license and be a private club, be it a cake club, coffee club, deli club or whatever. If I want you to be a member, fine. If not, seeya!


----------



## beowoulf90

It seems some are very willing to give up Freedom for security ( or correctly stated the false sense of security).

That is what is wrong with America today.. Too many slaves and not enough Free Men/Women. 

You don't need to have physical chains on you to be a slave, you only have to do what you are told and don't ask questions, otherwise you will be beat down by groups like the IRS, ATF, NSA and so on.. 

Remember Government knows what's best for you, you aren't to think for yourself, they will take care of everything..


Well now that I'm thoroughly sickened by this...


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> You have frequently mentioned "_freedom to run your private life the way you think it should be ran not the way the government tells you"_.
> 
> I think you need to make up your mind about the difference between freedom in private business versus freedom in public business. They are not both the same thing.
> 
> The business that you conduct privately without a business license allows you to deal with customers of your choice and be as elitist and discriminatory as you want.



You and I clearly have a different definitions of "public" and "private" business.

Here's mine: 

Public business is where the public has control in the buying, selling and/or services offered, i.e. government functions.

Private business is where a person has or group of people have control in the buying, selling and/or services offered.

In public business everyone should be treated the same. In private business the business owner should have the freedom to buy, or not buy from; sell to or not sell to; and/or provide, or not provide, whatever services he wishes to whoever he wishes.




Paumon said:


> That's not the same thing as the business you conduct in public having a business license to deal with public customers. In public business with a business license if you're elitist and discriminatory about customers for whatever reason you won't stay in business for very long. Even without government intervention if you're discriminatory in public business then eventually somebody will find a way to put you out of business by causing you to lose your business license - or else - word will spread about your discriminatory practices, you'll get a bad reputation as an unfair or unethical person to deal with and then you'll just end up losing all of your customers. Which means you'll still be out of business.


So? If I want to run a business in such a way I can not attract customers do I not have that freedom?


----------



## where I want to

So where does your freedom of action end when it runs into mine?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Right... and just how long do you think any one would be able to hold onto ANY freedom in this anarchist society? You are basically saying the guy with the biggest stick gets to make up new rules as he goes along.


As I have said I know all rights must be limited but that limit must be as small as possible and only used when one right infringes on another.

I have also said over and over you have no right to anything which must be provided to you by another person.

Therefore you have NO right to a cake. You have NO right to a house. You have NO right to medical care. Therefore your rights are not violated if someone refuses to sell you a cake FOR ANY REASON.


----------



## MDKatie

beowoulf90 said:


> Remember Government knows what's best for you, you aren't to think for yourself, they will take care of everything..


Replace "government" with "god". But that's ok?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, anytime there is more than one human being living together... as a family, community or society, there is always going to be someone making rules... tis the nature of the beast. The tricky part is making sure those making the rules can also be held accountable by those they rule over. Our founding fathers put together a pretty good system when they set up our own government... by placing rules upon the rule makers, and protecting the basic rights and freedom of the common man.


Ok show me where in the USC it is stated that you, as in individual, have the right to buy what you wish from someone who does not want to sell it to you.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> Therefore you have NO right to a cake. You have NO right to a house. You have NO right to medical care. Therefore your rights are not violated if someone refuses to sell you a cake FOR ANY REASON.


Would you agree if the baker refused to bake a cake because someone was black?


----------



## where I want to

MDKatie said:


> Replace "government" with "god". But that's ok?


But the definition of God is someone who knows all.


----------



## MDKatie

where I want to said:


> But the definition of God is someone who knows all.


I don't want to hijack this into a religion debate, but it does have to do with religion already, so... I just find it hypocritical how people are so quick to call those "sheeple" or "sheep" who follow the government (or think differently than they do with regards to politics), but they are so ready to be sheep in god's flock, never questioning a thing or thinking for themselves.


----------



## homstdr74

MDKatie said:


> I don't want to hijack this into a religion debate, but it does have to do with religion already, so... I just find it hypocritical how people are so quick to call those "sheeple" or "sheep" who follow the government (or think differently than they do with regards to politics), but *they are so ready to be sheep in god's flock, never questioning a thing or thinking for themselves*.


And how could you possibly know that is so? Besides, "religion" is simply an affirmation of how good human beings can be. Why would anyone question that which is good and plunge headlong into believing in things that have been wrong with society from the beginning of recorded history and long before?

Just because a person is "religious" and believes and acts upon the precepts put forth by any of a number of "religions" does not mean that they do so because they were told that was "the thing to do". 

Conversely, I cannot believe that any of the "entitlement" mob think for themselves.


----------



## where I want to

MDKatie said:


> I don't want to hijack this into a religion debate, but it does have to do with religion already, so... I just find it hypocritical how people are so quick to call those "sheeple" or "sheep" who follow the government (or think differently than they do with regards to politics), but they are so ready to be sheep in god's flock, never questioning a thing or thinking for themselves.


But, if you believe in God, would you ever want to oppose someone who knows all? 
I admit to a sneaking idea that a lot of people who say they speak for God have been listening more to themselves but I am absolutely sure that the government does not have my personal best interest at heart. The only time they seem to show a real interest is at tax season.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> The resolution?
> Very simple.
> The question the OP asked was "Do you believe in personal freedom?"
> 
> The answer for some is, "No."


No it is not no. It is that each person has a different tipping point or line in the sand on where personal freedoms meet societies needs or wants. I believe in personal freedom but I also believe that when you use your personal freedom to hurt another, the line is crossed.


----------



## MDKatie

homstdr74 said:


> And how could you possibly know that is so? Besides, "religion" is simply an affirmation of how good human beings can be. Why would anyone question that which is good and plunge headlong into believing in things that have been wrong with society from the beginning of recorded history and long before?
> 
> Just because a person is "religious" and believes and acts upon the precepts put forth by any of a number of "religions"* does not mean that they do so because they were told that was "the thing to do*".
> 
> Conversely, I cannot believe that any of the "entitlement" mob think for themselves.


Sure they do! I have seen many instances where people don't question religion at all because "it's in the bible" (to paraphrase). Or, if they *do* think for themselves, they don't act on any of those thoughts because their religion says they shouldn't.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Ok show me where in the USC it is stated that you, as in individual, have the right to buy what you wish from someone who does not want to sell it to you.


I went over this earlier... the ninth amendment and the fourteenth....along with congress being authorised to pass the necessary laws to protect these rights.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO _*THEIR*_ CAKE.


I do not have the right to steal the cake nor to force anyone to sell me their cake.... unless they offer said cake for sale... at which point I have just as much right to buy it as anyone else.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> You don't like the balance of freedoms and laws that ensure you have those freedoms. Where is your tipping point? I know mine and it just may be different than yours. I don't care what you do in your personal life *but if your personal choices impact too many in our society than I have a right to work towards creating laws against your personal choices.* The USC works towards balancing those wants and rights. It will never make everyone happy but if we want to live in this society than that is the price we pay.


How does not allowing someone (or even a group of people) to buy a cake from ME, effect so many people in society (negatively) that laws need to be brought up in order to force THEIR BELIEFS on me? There will always be options for that group of people.

Answer this without going down the 'slippery slope'.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> How does not allowing someone (or even a group of people) to buy a cake from ME, effect so many people in society (negatively) that laws need to be brought up in order to force THEIR BELIEFS on me? There will always be options for that group of people.
> 
> Answer this without going down the 'slippery slope'.


Discrimination hurts everyone.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Would you agree if the baker refused to bake a cake because someone was black?


Yes. My entire point is you, as a individual, have the right to run your private business/life just the way you want. 

If you don't like tall black women no one should have the power to stick a gun in your ribs and force you to sell your goods or service to a tall black woman. That's NO ONE not another individual or the government. If you don't like short white guys you have the freedom to refuse to sell to any man under whatever height you consider short. 

I'll say it again, just because you are alive you do not have the right to ANYTHING which must be provided to you by someone else.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Yes. My entire point is you, as a individual, have the right to run your private business/life just the way you want.
> 
> *If you don't like tall black women no one should have the power to stick a gun in your ribs and force you to sell your goods or service to a tall black woman. That's NO ONE not another individual or the government. If you don't like short white guys you have the freedom to refuse to sell to any man under whatever height you consider short. *


The USC says otherwise. You are not allowed to discriminate.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> I don't want to hijack this into a religion debate, but it does have to do with religion already,



No it doesn't. Religion has nothing to do with it. You can take religion, gender, life style and race out of it completely and its the same issue. 

Lets say you own a business which makes and sells cat toys and you can't stand tall people so you refuse to sell your cat toys to anyone who is 6 foot or taller. A 6'2" someone comes in and wants to buy one of your cat toys. 

Questions:

Should you be able to refuse to sell to them because you can't stand tall people? 

Or 

Should that that 6'2" someone should be able to get a gun and force you to sell them a toy?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> No it is not no. It is that each person has a different tipping point or line in the sand on where personal freedoms meet societies needs or wants. I believe in personal freedom but I also believe that when you use your personal freedom to hurt another, the line is crossed.


Ok who gets to define "hurt". How is someone "hurt" if they can't buy a cake from a specific business?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I went over this earlier... the ninth amendment and the fourteenth....along with congress being authorised to pass the necessary laws to protect these rights.


What rights?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I do not have the right to steal the cake nor to force anyone to sell me their cake.... unless they offer said cake for sale...
> 
> Huh? First you say you don't have the right to force them to sell it to you then you say you have the right to use a gun in the hand of a government official to force them to sell it to you even if they don't want you to have it if that reason is a reason you don't agree with. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yvonne's hubby said:
> 
> 
> 
> at which point I have just as much right to buy it as anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You have no "right" to buy anything. You have the freedom to buy it but not a right to. And they have the freedom to sell it to you or not sell it to you for any reason they wish. Even after they offer it for sale ITS THEIR CAKE. And you have no right to it if they don't want to sell it to you.
> 
> I'll state it one more time. You have no RIGHT to anything which must be provided to you by another individual. If that ever becomes a RIGHT then personal freedom is completely lost.
Click to expand...


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Discrimination hurts everyone.


How so?


----------



## Vash

MDKatie said:


> *I don't want to hijack this into a religion debate,*


Hurr...Really? :huh: Your preceding post indicates otherwise:



MDKatie said:


> Replace "government" with "god". But that's ok?


:smack


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> How so?


If you need me to explain that then I think I would be wasting my time.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> Wrong. You have no "right" to buy anything. You have the freedom to buy it but not a right to. And they have the freedom to sell it to you or not sell it to you for any reason they wish. Even after they offer it for sale ITS THEIR CAKE. And you have no right to it if they don't want to sell it to you.
> 
> I'll state it one more time. You have no RIGHT to anything which must be provided to you by another individual. If that ever becomes a RIGHT then personal freedom is completely lost.


If nobody has a right to buy anything then nobody has a right to sell anything either.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Yvonne's hubby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have the right to steal the cake nor to force anyone to sell me their cake.... unless they offer said cake for sale...
> 
> Huh? First you say you don't have the right to force them to sell it to you then you say you have the right to use a gun in the hand of a government official to force them to sell it to you even if they don't want you to have it if that reason is a reason you don't agree with. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You have no "right" to buy anything. You have the freedom to buy it but not a right to. And they have the freedom to sell it to you or not sell it to you for any reason they wish. Even after they offer it for sale ITS THEIR CAKE. And you have no right to it if they don't want to sell it to you.
> 
> I'll state it one more time. You have no RIGHT to anything which must be provided to you by another individual. If that ever becomes a RIGHT then personal freedom is completely lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck when you use these kind of arguments in front of the judge... I might even bake you a cake... would you like one with or without a file?
Click to expand...


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> If you need me to explain that then I think I would be wasting my time.


Copout!


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Copout!


Believe what you wish. It is more than obvious that many here do not believe that discrimination is a problem.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Believe what you wish. It is more than obvious that many here do not believe that discrimination is a problem.


He's asking relevant to the topic at hand.

Imagine how these threads would go if the first time someone disagreed with something they went "You wouldn't understand anyway."


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> What rights?


Those basic human rights referred to in the ninth amendment.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> Originally Posted by *Paumon*
> 
> _In public business with a business license if you're elitist and discriminatory about customers for whatever reason you won't stay in business for very long. _
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to Abercrombie & Fitch.
Click to expand...

Tell them what? That stocks in A&F are not down? That their sales aren't declining month after month? Maybe their imagined increases in sales is why they had to close over 50 stores last year? Maybe A&F are imagining that they weren't ruled against for discrimination?

https://www.google.ca/#q=abercrombie+and+fitch+sales+drop

https://www.google.ca/#q=ruling+against+abercrombie+and+fitch


----------



## Evons hubby

I am one of those who don't understand... I cannot seem to wrap my mind around why anyone wants to discriminate against their fellow citizens in the first place.... much less trying to justify such nonsense. :shrug:


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Tell them what? That stocks in A&F are not down? That their sales aren't declining month after month? Maybe their imagined increases in sales is why they had to close over 50 stores last year? Maybe A&F are imagining that they weren't ruled against for discrimination?
> 
> https://www.google.ca/#q=abercrombie+and+fitch+sales+drop
> 
> https://www.google.ca/#q=ruling+against+abercrombie+and+fitch


You assume that their decline in sales is due to their CEOs stupidity. The numbers report losses from other teen retailers like AÃ©ropostale and American Eagle. As far as I can tell they are all still in business, however.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am one of those who don't understand... I cannot seem to wrap my mind around *why anyone wants to discriminate against their fellow citizens* in the first place.... much less trying to justify such nonsense. :shrug:


Superiority complex.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am one of those who don't understand... I cannot seem to wrap my mind around *why anyone wants to discriminate against their fellow citizens in the first place*.... much less trying to justify such nonsense. :shrug:


:umno: Strawman again.

No one in this thread WANTS to discriminate against anyone. However, there are several people in this thread that don't think it is OK for the .gov to come in to their lives and say "Your opinions are wrong because they conflict with this person/group. Conform or else."


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> You assume that their decline in sales is due to their CEOs stupidity. The numbers report losses from other teen retailers like AÃ©ropostale and American Eagle. As far as I can tell they are all still in business, however.


They are now trying to improve their sales and employment practices as well as offering new lines and merchandise choices to customers that they were previously excluding or discriminating against. Why are they doing that now if not because of plummeting sales and discrimination suits brought against them? As long as they continue to make above noted improvements they will probably stay in business.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> They are now trying to improve their sales and employment practices as well as offering new lines and merchandise choices to customers that they were previously excluding or discriminating against. Why are they doing that now if not because of plummeting sales and discrimination suits brought against them? As long as they continue to make above noted improvements they will probably stay in business.


Because, as several of the articles point out, those trends (like most teen trends) have lost their "cool" factor. Just like boy bands died out.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> Superiority complex.


That's possible. I have often thought it might be just plain old ignorance. People tend to fear the unknown. This is perfectly natural.. keeps us alive in some cases. When confronted by someone with different beliefs, ideas, and customs that fear factor kicks in usually with less than desirable outcomes. Simply because we don't take the time to learn about others cultures.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Superiority complex.


Stones in a glass house...



Paumon said:


> And just to confirm one particular thing with you - yes, I freely admit that I do believe that Canada and several other countries are "morally superior" to America.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's possible. I have often thought it might be just plain old ignorance. People tend to fear the unknown. This is perfectly natural.. keeps us alive in some cases. When confronted by someone with different beliefs, ideas, and customs that fear factor kicks in usually with less than desirable outcomes. Simply because we don't take the time to learn about others cultures.


I think it is both superiority and ignorance. I have met well educated people who were very worldly and knowledgeable about other cultures and races and still they were contemptuous and discriminating towards them because they felt they were superior to them.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> :umno: Strawman again.
> 
> No one in this thread WANTS to discriminate against anyone. However, there are several people in this thread that don't think it is OK for the .gov to come in to their lives and say "Your opinions are wrong because they conflict with this person/group. Conform or else."


Ummmm if nobody discriminated against their fellow citizens there would no need in having laws against it now would there. I have yet to hear of any law requiring me to conform or else. OK ocare is in that league... but hopefully it will die a natural death before it kills our nation.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmm if nobody discriminated against their fellow citizens there would no need in having laws against it now would there.


Not disagreeing with you there. I said no one IN THIS THREAD wanted to discriminate against their fellow citizens.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have yet to hear of any law requiring me to conform or else.


EEO.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> Stones in a glass house...


You were the one who first accused me of believing that my country is morally superior to yours and I freely admitted in response that I do.

You disapprove of my honesty. Would you rather that I lied to you? Sorry, I won't do that. Honesty is the best policy.

I might not approve of what Watcher is advocating for but I sure do respect the man for standing up for what he believes in and being honest about it. I haven't attacked him for his honesty. If you disapprove of honesty in others then that makes you a dishonest person and you can only harm yourself by being dishonest.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's possible. I have often thought it might be just plain old ignorance. People tend to fear the unknown. This is perfectly natural.. keeps us alive in some cases. When confronted by someone with different beliefs, ideas, and customs that fear factor kicks in usually with less than desirable outcomes. Simply because we don't take the time to learn about others cultures.


Nope, it's TMI. Who cares why someone buys the dam cake? None of us want to hear about the sleazy side of life, not from homosexuals nor from heterosexuals. If they'd keep their bleeping mouths shut and purchase whatever it is they want for their particular cargo cult, there would be no need for the bleeping thought police every time someone steps outside their own house.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> You were the one who first accused me of believing that my country is morally superior to yours and I freely admitted in response that I do.
> 
> You disapprove of my honesty. Would you rather that I lied to you? Sorry, I won't do that. Honesty is the best policy.
> 
> I might not approve of what Watcher is advocating for but I sure do respect the man for standing up for what he believes in and being honest about it. I haven't attacked him for his honesty. If you disapprove of honesty in others then that makes you a dishonest person and you can only harm yourself by being dishonest.


I have no problems with honesty. Just calling it like I see it.

Your post about the superiority complex seemed a tad hollow based on that earlier post of yours.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> If you need me to explain that then I think I would be wasting my time.


So you are saying society is better if we force people to accept everyone's actions no matter what they believe? Just what measures do you think are OK to use to force this thought policing upon people?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> If nobody has a right to buy anything then nobody has a right to sell anything either.


That is correct, you only have the freedom to sell. For you to have the right to sell the government would have to have the power to force someone to buy. After all not selling it would be a violation of your rights and one of the few jobs of the government is to protect the individual's rights.


----------



## Paumon

homstdr74 said:


> Nope, it's TMI. *Who cares why someone buys the dam cake?* None of us want to hear about the sleazy side of life, not from homosexuals nor from heterosexuals. *If they'd keep their bleeping mouths shut and purchase whatever it is they want* for their particular cargo cult, there would be no need for the bleeping thought police every time someone steps outside their own house.


I do agree with you about that. But the cake baker was the one who cared and disapproved about why someone wanted to buy the cake and refused them. I doubt the couple who wanted to buy the cake were telling the cake baker about the sleazy side of their life. If the cake baker had just sold the cake nobody here would have known anything about it and the thought police wouldn't be intervening.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> If the cake baker had just sold the cake nobody here would have known anything about it and the thought police wouldn't be intervening.


If the patrons had gone to a different baker the thought police wouldn't have needed to get involved either.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> If the patrons had gone to a different baker the thought police wouldn't have needed to get involved either.


If the baker did not discriminate then there would be no reason to go to court.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> watcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck when you use these kind of arguments in front of the judge... I might even bake you a cake... would you like one with or without a file?
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and even rights are not always legal. Not that long ago it would have been legal for me to own another human. Even a shorter time ago it was have been legal for the government to tell one group how to live. Does the fact that both were legal make them correct?
> 
> Does the fact that the government now has the power to force you buy insurance make it correct?
> 
> Does the fact that the government can tell you that you must sell your product to someone you do not wish to have it make it correct?
> 
> Look at it this way. Say you were a Jewish owner of a gun shop who lost a large part of your ancestors during the Holocaust. One day someone came in full neo-nazi dress and with SS lighting bolt and swastika tats. As they were looking at your weapons they were talking to their similarly attired friends about how its too bad the Fuhrer's final solution failed, laughing about how funny it would have been to look through a window of one of the gas chambers to see the funny faces that were being made and its too bad that that currently in the US its illegal to just kill *****. Do you think it would be correct for the government to force you to sell your goods to them? After all don't they have the "right" to buy what you have offered for sell? And if you refuse to sell to them based on their life style choice you are violating that "right" are you not?
Click to expand...


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> If the baker did not discriminate then there would be no reason to go to court.


You mean if the Baker had just followed societal pressure and forgotten that he was perfectly capable of making his own decisions based on his own personal beliefs.

The only reason this went to court is because a few people were denied something that was never theirs to begin with.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> You mean if the Baker had just followed societal pressure and forgotten that he was perfectly capable of making his own decisions based on his own personal beliefs.
> 
> The only reason this went to court is because a few people were denied something that was never theirs to begin with.


That is what you meant not I.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Believe what you wish. It is more than obvious that many here do not believe that discrimination is a problem.


Government discrimination is a problem. But an individual has the freedom to think as they wish.

BTW, I've told this story before but for you I'll tell it again.

My daughter came home from elementary school one day and told me she might be in trouble. When I asked her why she told me a story which warmed my heart. She said they were taking one of those standardized test and the teacher told her she failed to fill in a mark for her race. She said she told the teacher that she had been taught you didn't judge people by their race therefore she wasn't going to put her race on it.

When I'm asked for my race on forms I put OTHER and if asked for a specific one I put HUMAN. 


I'm one of the few who still think King's dream is the way we should go, i.e. to judge a man by the content of his character not the color of his skin. But I also try to live the quote linked to Voltaire and Patrick Henry; I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Government discrimination is a problem. But an individual has the freedom to think as they wish.
> 
> BTW, I've told this story before but for you I'll tell it again.
> 
> My daughter came home from elementary school one day and told me she might be in trouble. When I asked her why she told me a story which warmed my heart. She said they were taking one of those standardized test and the teacher told her she failed to fill in a mark for her race. She said she told the teacher that she had been taught you didn't judge people by their race therefore she wasn't going to put her race on it.
> 
> When I'm asked for my race on forms I put OTHER and if asked for a specific one I put HUMAN.
> 
> 
> I'm one of the few who still think King's dream is the way we should go, i.e. to judge a man by the content of his character not the color of his skin. But I also try to live the quote linked to Voltaire and Patrick Henry; I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.


Well, you should be able to tell me all you want that my being a women means I should be discriminated against but you don't have the right to actually discriminate against me because I am a women.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Those basic human rights referred to in the ninth amendment.


So you think you have the right to something someone else produces? To what do you apply this right and how do you go about getting the government to correct it when this right is violated?

Do you apply it to a new car? After all if you have a right to other people's goods surely you must have the right to a new car and if someone refuses to provide it he has CLEARLY violated your right. Therefore you should file a federal civil rights suit against him for failing to providing something which is right to have.

Sounds dumb when you take it to its logical conclusion doesn't it?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am one of those who don't understand... I cannot seem to wrap my mind around why anyone wants to discriminate against their fellow citizens in the first place.... much less trying to justify such nonsense. :shrug:


Because they do. Why do some people want to watching golf on TV? Why do some people want to live in a tiny apartment in a city with hundreds of thousands of people crammed in with them?

The question is: Just because you don't want to does that mean you should force someone else not to as well?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmm if nobody discriminated against their fellow citizens there would no need in having laws against it now would there. I have yet to hear of any law requiring me to conform or else. OK ocare is in that league... but hopefully it will die a natural death before it kills our nation.


Really? Haven't you pointed out some yourself? Try advertising your house for sell as "for a nice white family" and see how fast you have a government official or three talking to you about how you must conform to the "correct" way of thinking or face the "or else".


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> If the baker did not discriminate then there would be no reason to go to court.


I used this in another msg but I wanted to make sure you saw it.

Look at it this way. Say you were a Jewish owner of a gun shop who lost a large part of your ancestors during the Holocaust. One day someone came in full neo-nazi dress and with SS lighting bolt and swastika tats. As they were looking at your weapons they were talking to their similarly attired friends about how its too bad the Fuhrer's final solution failed, laughing about how funny it would have been to look through a window of one of the gas chambers to see the funny faces that were being made and its too bad that that currently in the US its illegal to just kill *****. Do you think it would be correct for the government to force you to sell your goods to them? After all don't they have the "right" to buy what you have offered for sell? And if you refuse to sell to them based on their life style choice you are violating that "right" are you not?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Well, you should be able to tell me all you want that my being a women means I should be discriminated against but you don't have the right to actually discriminate against me because I am a women.


Huh? All I want? Well I want a new tractor, a new 4WD truck, someone to put up my fences so I don't have to and I wouldn't turn down an all expense paid 4 week vacation to say Key West.

IOW, you need to rephrase what you mean.


----------



## joebill

I skimmed the statement a few pages back that "discrimination hurts everybody" and got kind of a chuckle out of it. Folks are often proud of their "discriminating tastes" and such. It's often the act of sensing the difference between the desireable and the undesireable, and the law often demands it of us, in the form of whom we sell what.

I cannot sell a weapon to a minor nor to a Canadian, and I can be sued for selling a riding lawnmower to somebody too old to use it safely, or anybody liely to hurt themselves with it because of disability or mental defect.

Even though it's perfectly legal, I'd never sell one of my muzzle loading cannon to somebody I had not talked to and determined that they were responsible enough to use it safely.

A barkeep is responsible for discriminating between the buzzed and the drunk and refusing service to the latter, and I have often refused to sell things to people who, for one reason or another, I was convinced had "no business with it".

Last year, a woman from hundreds of miles away sent an email asking me if I would make her a knife to her specifications. She explained that her son had been murdered with a small knife that was cheaply made and she wanted a duplicate of that knife, but of better quality and steel. I thought it was a hoax at first, but had a conversation with local law enforcement where she lived and found that she wasn't lying, but I decided to "discriminate against her" because I didn't know what was going on for sure and didn't want to cause damage in some way I did not understand. I could have, in some way, been legitimate, but I elected to "discriminate against her" for safety's sake.

Lastly, I have MANY times discriminated against people based on a kind of "catch-all" phrase that covers a multitude of possibilities for future trouble that I can sense coming down the pike in any future relationship that might develop from doing business with them.

The most common tag I hang on it is "I won't do business with you because I don't like your attitude", and it may come up because I sense animosity from them, because they plainly distrust me and are looking for justification for that, because they think I should let them tell me how to run my business, because they want to haggle over pricing, because they have expressed dissatisfactkion with my work or products perviously, because they get a quote on a thousand parts and want to buy 12 parts at that price, or anything else that tells me ours is not going to be a happy and profitable business relationship. Often, I will give the "benifit of the doubt" to a customer on a warranty transactin, but if it comes up a couple more times in the same way, I will return his money and refuse to sell him anything else instead of replacing the item.

Now, back to the cake. Let's say that I was in the cake business and these guys came in for their nuptual cake and I pretended that I thought it was just peachy, but they were intent on shocking or disturbing me ( not unheard of for folks trying to make a point) so I agreed to make the cake, thereby establishing the relationship. I'm pretty sure that the chances are good that if they had not managed to provoke a refusal the first time, they would have done something MORE provoking the next time, for instance, brought in their own figurines for the top of the cake, mimmicing what was to take place on the wedding night between them.

And, after all, since the right to refuse has already been bulldozed, why would one think he had the right to turn them down over a bit of legal pornography rendered in icing or plastic? Yeah, I know, I wouldn't do that for a boy-girl coule either, so they couldn't be forced to do it for a gay couple, but none of us are absolutely sure, are we?

Nope, my universal refusal is and will remain "I don't like your attitude" and it applies to anyone I don't want to do business with, and they are NOT entitled to an explanation....Joe


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I used this in another msg but I wanted to make sure you saw it.
> 
> Look at it this way. Say you were a Jewish owner of a gun shop who lost a large part of your ancestors during the Holocaust. One day someone came in full neo-nazi dress and with SS lighting bolt and swastika tats. As they were looking at your weapons they were talking to their similarly attired friends about how its too bad the Fuhrer's final solution failed, laughing about how funny it would have been to look through a window of one of the gas chambers to see the funny faces that were being made and its too bad that that currently in the US its illegal to just kill *****. Do you think it would be correct for the government to force you to sell your goods to them? After all don't they have the "right" to buy what you have offered for sell? And if you refuse to sell to them based on their life style choice you are violating that "right" are you not?


I saw. I support their right to say what they want. I also support the gun owner not being able to discriminate because of what they say.

Lots of things people do that I don't like but I don't think that gives me the right to discriminate based on that.


----------



## Evons hubby

:lookout:


watcher said:


> So you think you have the right to something someone else produces? To what do you apply this right and how do you go about getting the government to correct it when this right is violated?
> 
> Do you apply it to a new car? After all if you have a right to other people's goods surely you must have the right to a new car and if someone refuses to provide it he has CLEARLY violated your right. Therefore you should file a federal civil rights suit against him for failing to providing something which is right to have.
> 
> Sounds dumb when you take it to its logical conclusion doesn't it?


I am not about to say your above comment is dumb if carried to your somewhat illogical conclusion. The mods frown on that sort of thing. First off I have never said I have a right to anyone else's property. I do however have a right to "purchase" said property if you decide you want to sell it and if I have the cash in hand to meet your asking price. Its part of that equal protection under the law in the fourteenth amendment.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :lookout:
> 
> I am not about to say your above comment is dumb if carried to your somewhat illogical conclusion. The mods frown on that sort of thing. First off I have never said I have a right to anyone else's property. I do however have a right to "purchase" said property if you decide you want to sell it and if I have the cash in hand to meet your asking price. Its part of that equal protection under the law in the fourteenth amendment.


I assume you mean section 1 of the amendment in question:



> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I fail to see in here anything that says I must sell you a cake if you have the money.

:lookout:


----------



## joebill

painterswife said:


> I saw. I support their right to say what they want. I also support the gun owner not being able to discriminate because of what they say.
> 
> Lots of things people do that I don't like but I don't think that gives me the right to discriminate based on that.



HMMMM
How long have you been in business?.....Joe


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I used this in another msg but I wanted to make sure you saw it.
> 
> Look at it this way. Say you were a Jewish owner of a gun shop who lost a large part of your ancestors during the Holocaust. One day someone came in full neo-nazi dress and with SS lighting bolt and swastika tats. As they were looking at your weapons they were talking to their similarly attired friends about how its too bad the Fuhrer's final solution failed, laughing about how funny it would have been to look through a window of one of the gas chambers to see the funny faces that were being made and its too bad that that currently in the US its illegal to just kill *****. Do you think it would be correct for the government to force you to sell your goods to them? After all don't they have the "right" to buy what you have offered for sell? And if you refuse to sell to them based on their life style choice you are violating that "right" are you not?


I saw it.... and sorta chuckled to myself.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> No it doesn't. Religion has nothing to do with it.


Most of this thread is regarding serving a cake to gay people, and now it conflicts with the bakers' opinion of what's right and what's not. Therefore, the thread is already about religion.



> Lets say you own a business which makes and sells cat toys and you can't stand tall people so you refuse to sell your cat toys to anyone who is 6 foot or taller. A 6'2" someone comes in and wants to buy one of your cat toys.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> Should you be able to refuse to sell to them because you can't stand tall people?
> 
> Or
> 
> Should that that 6'2" someone should be able to get a gun and force you to sell them a toy?


What in the world do firearms have to do with anything? Who is saying they should be able to use a gun? 



Vash said:


> No one in this thread WANTS to discriminate against anyone.


SURE they do!! Why else would this thread exist? It's because some people want to be able to discriminate.


----------



## where I want to

MDKatie said:


> SURE they do!! Why else would this thread exist? It's because some people want to be able to discriminate.


Actually they said they do not want to be told by the government how to run their business. You may be right or not, since you created that argument, it's not clear to whom that idea applies. But the proposed law said that a business does not have to offer products or service if they have a religious based opposition.

So you saying that religion is always to be disregarded if it conflicts with anything else?


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> I do agree with you about that. But the cake baker was the one who cared and disapproved about why someone wanted to buy the cake and refused them. I doubt the couple who wanted to buy the cake were telling the cake baker about the sleazy side of their life. If the cake baker had just sold the cake nobody here would have known anything about it and the thought police wouldn't be intervening.


OK, just how do they go about telling someone about a homosexual wedding without telling them that it's a homosexual wedding? Easy answer: they don't tell anyone who or what it's for, they buy the cake and they put their own toys on the top.

But no----they want to flaunt what they do (hopefully in privacy) to the majority of the rest of the world who DO NOT CARE and most certainly DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT. YUCK!


----------



## Vash

MDKatie said:


> What in the world do firearms have to do with anything? Who is saying they should be able to use a gun?


If he has to explain further he'd be wasting his time ...


----------



## Paumon

homstdr74 said:


> *(#1)* OK, just how do they go about telling someone about a homosexual wedding without telling them that it's a homosexual wedding? Easy answer: they don't tell anyone who or what it's for, they buy the cake and they put their own toys on the top.
> 
> *(# 2)* But no----they want to flaunt what they do (hopefully in privacy) to the majority of the rest of the world who DO NOT CARE and most certainly DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT. YUCK!


I think this is two different issues here.

Issue #2, the business of immature indiscreet flaunting of sexual or aberrant preferences, the flashy gay pride parades, carnival atmosphere and all the media hype, weird psychosexual behaviour and other noisy militant in your face attention getting stuff - I agree with you that most people including the majority of quiet, self-assured gays probably don't care and don't want to hear about any of that stuff. I can only hope that eventually the noisy ones will get over the novelty of new freedoms and right to marry and get bored with being noisy attention getters and settle down and get on with their lives like other people. And I hope the ones who have psychosexual disorders will recognize it and get some counselling because I think they are the ones that a lot of people object to or fear the most. However, I think it'll probably take another 2 or 3 decades before society sees the noisy ones maturing and settling down.

As to issue #1, if two men or two women go into a wedding cake shop together to order a cake and choose the recipe and the style of the cake with icing and trimming and other decorations they don't have to tell anyone they are gay. The very fact that they're choosing the cake together tells the whole story right there without anyone saying anything or doing any in your face flaunting about it being for a gay wedding. As regards the incident in question - we don't know what that particular couple's behaviour was like or what they said when they went into the cake shop so it's not really fair to accuse them of flaunting indiscreetly or behaving in any kind of aberrant way. The cake baker would have known just by them being there together that it was for a gay wedding without being told.


----------



## beowoulf90

MDKatie said:


> Replace "government" with "god". But that's ok?


So choose your poison! 

The difference that I see is the name of "God", since we still have Freedom of Religion to a point yet and "God" doesn't send thugs to take everything you have away from you. When was the last time "God" sent IRS agents armed with full automatic weapons? When was the last time "God" used your private information against you? When was the last time that "God" lied to you in order to protect his own rear?

So tell me again how Government and God are the same!


To the general thread

I keep seeing a lot of people here bring up Christianity and stuff from the Old Testament, yada yada yada...

Their point is to try and use one's religion against them because they don't follow all the tenets.

Yet these very same people doing this are just as culpable as the Christians they are attacking. 
They claim to be atheists,pagan, muslim, etc yet they try and proselytize others to their point of view. Yet in the same breath claim Freedom of religion while beating down others.

I find it funny/ironic, simply because I can go back into any "religion" and find things that are no longer done/acceptable in today's society. Even in my own beliefs I know I won't be buried with at least 2 slave girls (dang the luck) since it is no longer acceptable in society.

You who claim to be atheists, be forewarned. You are fooling yourself when you attack others religious beliefs to further your political agenda..If you truly don't believe in "something" then why do you care that others do? Why do you attack others using religion as a weapon?
Is it your jealousy that others have something to believe in and you don't?
Why do you attack a church that sits on the town square for having a cross on their property, next to public property?
Why do you claim the Right to put up a "sign" on the public property condemning the religion of the church?

Anyway the point is; if you want to argue/debate a topic do so on the topic, not the past aspects of the religion.

Remember if you are a woman and you have been alone with a male that wasn't a family member you can be stoned to death under muslim law/beliefs. Or even beat to death..Oh and don't get rapped under mulsim law, because you are guilty, not the rapist.
(Just another issue not acceptable under today's society, well at least here in the USA, for now)


----------



## MDKatie

beowoulf90 said:


> So tell me again how Government and God are the same!


I can't tell you that again when I never said it a first time.






> You who claim to be atheists, be forewarned. You are fooling yourself when you attack others religious beliefs to further your political agenda..If you truly don't believe in "something" then why do you care that others do? Why do you attack others using religion as a weapon?
> Is it your jealousy that others have something to believe in and you don't?
> Why do you attack a church that sits on the town square for having a cross on their property, next to public property?
> Why do you claim the Right to put up a "sign" on the public property condemning the religion of the church?


We who "claim" to be atheist? Wow. That's nice. And I haven't seen anyone "attacking" any religion to further an agenda. 

Jealous! Hah!:grin: That's a good one. Thanks for the chuckle this morning!


----------



## dixiegal62

Vash said:


> Tell that to Abercrombie & Fitch.


 
A&E is a prime example of how it should work. He has the right to not sell to people he considers not pretty enough and each person has a right to choose if they want to give him their business. So what if he doesn't want to sell a size 18 women's jeans, it's easy enough to walk to the next store.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> A&E is a prime example of how it should work. He has the right to not sell to people he considers not pretty enough and each person has a right to choose if they want to give him their business. So what if he doesn't want to sell a size 18 women's jeans, it's easy enough to walk to the next store.


Offering something to sell and then telling someone who has money in hand for the stock that is right in front of them that they can't buy it because you don't like how they look. Anyone that wants that right has some serious emotional problems in my opinion. Very different than not offering it at all.

It is also not working out very well for them. http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/investing/abercrombie-fitch-plus-sizes/


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> A&E is a prime example of how it should work. He has the right to not sell to people he considers not pretty enough and each person has a right to choose if they want to give him their business. So what if he doesn't want to sell a size 18 women's jeans, it's easy enough to walk to the next store.


But they'll sell that same size 2 pair of jeans or that overpriced white tee shirt to anyone who walks into their store. Just like a bakery should sell that same raspberry filled, buttercream frosted wedding cake they have made and sold every week of their existence to anyone who walks in wishing to to purchase it.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Offering something to sell and then telling someone who has money in hand for the stock that is right in front of them that they can't buy it because you don't like how they look. Anyone that wants that right has some serious emotional problems in my opinion. Very different than not offering it at all.


I agree with this. When I ran an auto repair shop I had a feller come into the shop wanting me to fix his boat motor. Sorry... I dont do boats... I fix cars. I wasnt discriminating against fisherman.... I just didnt know anything about boat motors and didnt offer that service to anyone.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :lookout:
> 
> I am not about to say your above comment is dumb if carried to your somewhat illogical conclusion. The mods frown on that sort of thing. First off I have never said I have a right to anyone else's property. I do however have a right to "purchase" said property if you decide you want to sell it and if I have the cash in hand to meet your asking price. Its part of that equal protection under the law in the fourteenth amendment.


I'm sorry but just where in the 14th does it say that said amendment applies to the individual citizen? Everything I see in it says "United States" and "State" which is just what I said, the government must not discriminate but an individual has that freedom. Did I miss something?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I saw it.... and sorta chuckled to myself.


I can tell you a Jew in the situation would not be chuckling. Find an old one with a number tattoo and ask them about it.

BTW, you failed to say if you would think it would be ok if the government forced you to sell?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I'm sorry but just where in the 14th does it say that said amendment applies to the individual citizen? Everything I see in it says "United States" and "State" which is just what I said, the government must not discriminate but an individual has that freedom. *Did I miss something?*


Yes i believe you missed quite a bit. Section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

section 5:
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Then of course there is article 4 section 2: 
"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." 

need I bring forth the ninth amendment?

Oh why not! 

"AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> Most of this thread is regarding serving a cake to gay people, and now it conflicts with the bakers' opinion of what's right and what's not. Therefore, the thread is already about religion.


No its about freedom. Religious freedom and the freedom to do with your property as you wish and the freedom to live the way you wish.




MDKatie said:


> What in the world do firearms have to do with anything? Who is saying they should be able to use a gun?


You failed to answer the questions. But I'll answer yours. The gun comes in because a lot of people here believe that the tall person should have the "right" to force you to sell them a cat toy. To force you to do it there must be a threat to you. That threat can come directly from the person via a gun in his hand or indirectly from him via a gun in the hand of a government official. 

Now please answer my questions. 

_Should you be able to refuse to sell to them because you can't stand tall people? 

Or 

Should that that 6'2" someone should be able to get a gun and force you to sell them a toy? _





MDKatie said:


> SURE they do!! Why else would this thread exist? It's because some people want to be able to discriminate.


Bad logic. Using your logic:

I think you have the freedom to listen to nothing but viking operas therefore I *must* want to listen to nothing but viking operas myself.

Or better yet. I have let it be known that I hate the taste of Dr Pepper. With that know your logic would say I must want to drink Dr Pepper because I support the fact you have the freedom to drink Dr Pepper.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I can tell you a Jew in the situation would not be chuckling. Find an old one with a number tattoo and ask them about it.
> 
> BTW, you failed to say if you would think it would be ok if the government forced you to sell?


As with a lot of your hypotheticals the answer is quite simple. If someone walks into an establishment and their words or behavior are disruptive they can be asked to leave. Problem solved. Quite different than two people simply walking into a bakery and asking for a cake to be made. I'm sure you'll use your quite active imagination to come up with more scenarios to justify pseudoreligous bigotry but the answer to all of them remain the same to me. It is my opinion that businesses aren't individuals and shouldn't be accorded the rights of individuals. Behavior within a business establishment can and should be regulated by that establishment. Those behavior standards should be consistently applied to all patrons. What happens to your product after it leaves your store is of no consequence to you unless it somehow causes harm to those using it.


----------



## dixiegal62

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree with this. When I ran an auto repair shop I had a feller come into the shop wanting me to fix his boat motor. Sorry... I dont do boats... I fix cars. I wasnt discriminating against fisherman.... I just didnt know anything about boat motors and didnt offer that service to anyone.


 
Did you tell the boat guy you didn't work on boats because in your opinion boat owners where all fat and ugly and not cool enough? LOL not the same at all, but as I said it's his right to decided that. A&F didn't say they didn't know how to make bigger sizes he said he didn't think bigger people deserved to wear his cloths.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I can tell you a Jew in the situation would not be chuckling. Find an old one with a number tattoo and ask them about it.
> 
> BTW, you failed to say if you would think it would be ok if the government forced you to sell?


The reason I chuckled to myself was because the jewish businessmen that I have known would not only have sold these twits whatever they wanted.... they would have given them their "one day only special discounts". a loose translation.... double or triple their prices just on general principle.


----------



## dixiegal62

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The reason I chuckled to myself was because the jewish businessmen that I have known would not only have sold these twits whatever they wanted.... they would have given them their "one day only special discounts". a loose translation.... double or triple their prices just on general principle.


 
I'm pretty sure if the baker had sold them the cake at triple the price the couple would have still been pitching a hissy fit  There are still some people that won't sell their beliefs at any cost.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Did you tell the boat guy you didn't work on boats because in your opinion boat owners where all fat and ugly and not cool enough? LOL not the same at all, but as I said it's his right to decided that. A&F didn't say they didn't know how to make bigger sizes he said he didn't think bigger people deserved to wear his cloths.


And there is no law that forces them to make bigger sizes. The law only states that they must sell any size they do produce to anyone who walks in with the means to purchase it. No matter how you try to twist and add extra bits it remains quite simple. If you offer a good or service to the public you must offer it to all of the public who can afford it.


----------



## Evons hubby

dixiegal62 said:


> Did you tell the boat guy you didn't work on boats because in your opinion boat owners where all fat and ugly and not cool enough?


Naw, I kept that part to myself.  coz not all boat owners are fat and goofy lookin.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes i believe you missed quite a bit. Section 1: "SECTION 1.
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


I must be a bit dense today. I still don't see it. I see where it says "No state" and "nor shall any state" but I don't see where it says 'no individual' or 'nor shall any individual'. Can you point out to me just where in there it says this applies to individuals?

The only way to say this applies to you being forced to sell your car to anyone with the money is to say that the state owns all property, i.e. the individual has no personal property.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> section 5:
> "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."


Ok, Congress has the right to pass laws to make sure states treat all citizens the same. Too bad its failing to do so but I don't want to get into the state sponsored discrimination of giving specific groups advantages over others in this thread. But again this has to do with the state, i.e. government, not private citizens. 





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then of course there is article 4 section 2:
> "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."


Which is just what I'm saying, you have the privilege to sell your property to who ever you wish w/o governmental interference.


----------



## dixiegal62

A good lesson for future bakeries is to agree to sell them their cakes at about 20k then contract the cake out to another baker and split the profit


----------



## Evons hubby

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm pretty sure if the baker had sold them the cake at triple the price the couple would have still been pitching a hissy fit  There are still some people that won't sell their beliefs at any cost.


Now why would they be pitching a fit? A good salesman would be sure they were thrilled at getting todays only "special deal"!


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I must be a bit dense today.


Cmon now watcher.... I have been reading your posts for a long time... you arent this dense. Congress was given the power to enact laws in order to make sure all our citizens are treated equally "under the law". Congress has passed those laws. I am sure you have heard of the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968. It prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and disability.

There have been other laws enacted as well to prohibit discrimination in the workplace... you have heard of federal labor laws... right? 

Many states have also passed legislation designed to prevent discrimination in business transactions. You can hate anyone you want... but if you are in business you still have to trade with anyone with the price of admission. I am pretty sure you know this.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> As with a lot of your hypotheticals the answer is quite simple. If someone walks into an establishment and their words or behavior are disruptive they can be asked to leave. Problem solved.


Good try to evade the question. But care to point out where I said the nice people with the tats were being disruptive? Could it be that you are so bigoted that you automatically assumed anyone dressed in neo-nazi clothing and with tats would be?

But to make it fair to you let's say that the gentlemen were being quit polite. They are talking at a normal conversational volume and their laughter is quite chuckles. Also there are no other people in the store for their actions to disrupt. They are merely talking among themselves as they browse the goods on display. Let's go one step farther, they don't know the owner and operator of "Billy Bob's Firearm Emporium" is a Jew (after all if they did they would not go there to buy their firearms would they). Now do you think its correct for the government to force our Jewish business owner to sell his goods to these polite gentlemen based on nothing but their views of how the world should be?




mmoetc said:


> It is my opinion that businesses aren't individuals and shouldn't be accorded the rights of individuals. Behavior within a business establishment can and should be regulated by that establishment. Those behavior standards should be consistently applied to all patrons. What happens to your product after it leaves your store is of no consequence to you unless it somehow causes harm to those using it.


So an individual loses his rights/freedoms when he starts a business? So the police should be able to search a business any time and for any reason? After all its not an individual therefore they clearly do not have the right to "_ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" _because the 4th amendment CLEARLY states the right of the "people" not the right of the "business". I guess we can also toss out 5th, 6th and 7th (the rights to fair trials) while we are at it. Sound good to you?


----------



## dixiegal62

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Now why would they be pitching a fit? A good salesman would be sure they were thrilled at getting todays only "special deal"!


They shouldn't but I think they would.

I see no reason why a bakery couldn't consider all wedding cakes custom jobs to be priced when ordering instead of a set price. We do it all the time in the painting business, each job is priced on it's own merits. No reason they couldn't contract out the job to another baker either, we have had plenty of painters offer us jobs that they couldn't do or didn't want to do and we paid them a finders fee or worked out a deal on the profits depending on the size of the job.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> No its about freedom. Religious freedom and the freedom to do with your property as you wish and the freedom to live the way you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to answer the questions. But I'll answer yours. The gun comes in because a lot of people here believe that the tall person should have the "right" to force you to sell them a cat toy. To force you to do it there must be a threat to you. That threat can come directly from the person via a gun in his hand or indirectly from him via a gun in the hand of a government official.
> 
> Now please answer my questions.
> 
> _Should you be able to refuse to sell to them because you can't stand tall people?
> 
> Or
> 
> Should that that 6'2" someone should be able to get a gun and force you to sell them a toy? _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad logic. Using your logic:
> 
> I think you have the freedom to listen to nothing but viking operas therefore I *must* want to listen to nothing but viking operas myself.
> 
> Or better yet. I have let it be known that I hate the taste of Dr Pepper. With that know your logic would say I must want to drink Dr Pepper because I support the fact you have the freedom to drink Dr Pepper.



You are all over the place! You're very good at inventing scenarios and going from point A to point Z. I really can't have a conversation with you when you're all over the place like this. It's pretty simple what I believe, and I've said it multiple times in this thread. I'm sorry if you've not understood it. 

I know you think individuals should be able to run his/her business and do whatever he wants (ie, have no rules at ALL), but I simply don't agree. It is morally wrong to treat people badly because you don't agree with them.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The reason I chuckled to myself was because the jewish businessmen that I have known would not only have sold these twits whatever they wanted.... they would have given them their "one day only special discounts". a loose translation.... double or triple their prices just on general principle.


I know a lot like that as well. But you'll note I used a very specific type of Jew. If one of their parents or grand parents have told them the story about the number tattooed on their arm and about 'the camps' you'll find they have a different view of people like the ones in my scenario.

Have you ever talked to a Holocaust survivor (not many left now) and/or their family members?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> So an individual loses his rights/freedoms when he starts a business? So the police should be able to search a business any time and for any reason? After all its not an individual therefore they clearly do not have the right to "_ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" _because the 4th amendment CLEARLY states the right of the "people" not the right of the "business". I guess we can also toss out 5th, 6th and 7th (the rights to fair trials) while we are at it. Sound good to you?


Nope, a business owner still has all their rights and freedoms intact... so long as they comply with the law. If someone files a complaint against them, they still have all their rights intact, and warrants must be issued in order to search their property, but the law may do so and investigate the alleged violation. If they find sufficient evidence in their investigation they may prosecute... but the business owner still has all his rights intact and is entitled to a jury trial and legal representation and is still considered innocent until proven guilty by the court.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I know a lot like that as well. But you'll note I used a very specific type of Jew. If one of their parents or grand parents have told them the story about the number tattooed on their arm and about 'the camps' you'll find they have a different view of people like the ones in my scenario.
> 
> Have you ever talked to a Holocaust survivor (not many left now) and/or their family members?


I worked for a Holocaust Survivor, tattooed and survived the camps. He served everyone in his business and when he was faced with bigoted people he still served them and also made an attempt to put a face and reality to the situation by attempting to educate the offenders. That was when I was in my early 20's and he is my inspiration every day when dealing with bigots.

He faced the worst kind of bigotry and vowed to not be one of those people.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I know a lot like that as well. But you'll note I used a very specific type of Jew. If one of their parents or grand parents have told them the story about the number tattooed on their arm and about 'the camps' you'll find they have a different view of people like the ones in my scenario.
> 
> Have you ever talked to a Holocaust survivor (not many left now) and/or their family members?


Yes I have talked to a Holocaust survivor. The guy ran a tire shop in my hometown when I was growing up. I bought bicycle tires from him as a youngster, and later car tires. I was quite impressed with that old guy... he was blind as a bat, couldnt see lightning.... but you couldnt fool him by handing him a five and telling him it was a twenty. He could feel the difference!


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Good try to evade the question. But care to point out where I said the nice people with the tats were being disruptive? Could it be that you are so bigoted that you automatically assumed anyone dressed in neo-nazi clothing and with tats would be?
> 
> But to make it fair to you let's say that the gentlemen were being quit polite. They are talking at a normal conversational volume and their laughter is quite chuckles. Also there are no other people in the store for their actions to disrupt. They are merely talking among themselves as they browse the goods on display. Let's go one step farther, they don't know the owner and operator of "Billy Bob's Firearm Emporium" is a Jew (after all if they did they would not go there to buy their firearms would they). Now do you think its correct for the government to force our Jewish business owner to sell his goods to these polite gentlemen based on nothing but their views of how the world should be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So an individual loses his rights/freedoms when he starts a business? So the police should be able to search a business any time and for any reason? After all its not an individual therefore they clearly do not have the right to "_ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" _because the 4th amendment CLEARLY states the right of the "people" not the right of the "business". I guess we can also toss out 5th, 6th and 7th (the rights to fair trials) while we are at it. Sound good to you?


I answered your question based on the facts you presented. As you have altered them the answer really doesn't change. If the shop owner finds any part of the conversation offensive he can ask those speaking to not further broach the subjects in question or to leave the shop. If the patrons choose to play by his consistently applied code of behavior he has the obligation to allow them purchase his products. 

The question of search and seizure is slightly more nuanced. As an individual I have the right to deny entry to my dwelling to law enforcement unless they meet certain criteria. If I'm running a business with access to the public I have no expectation of privacy from the police in those public areas. If I leave a business ledger outlining illegal activities open on a counter I cannot expect an officer of the law to avert their eyes. I would say that a business has much the same expectation to privacy for those things not accesable to the general public as does anyone else.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> I worked for a Holocaust Survivor, tattooed and survived the camps. He served everyone in his business and when he was faced with bigoted people he still served them and also made an attempt to put a face and reality to the situation by attempting to educate the offenders. That was when I was in my early 20's and he is my inspiration every day when dealing with bigots.
> 
> He faced the worst kind of bigotry and vowed to not be one of those people.


He sounds a lot like the guy I knew that ran the tire shop.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> He sounds a lot like the guy I knew that ran the tire shop.


He was amazing. To go through that kind of horror and still not wish to discriminate against people that as he used to put it " Don't have the sense to know any better"


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Cmon now watcher.... I have been reading your posts for a long time... you arent this dense. Congress was given the power to enact laws in order to make sure all our citizens are treated equally "under the law". Congress has passed those laws.


Here's where you and I disagree. I think congress was not given that power but it _*TOOK*_ them. There is NOTHING in that amendment which gives the congress power to force an individual to act as congress thinks he should. 

There are a great number of powers congress has taken to which there in no constitutional authority. I have asked for years for someone to point out to me where in the USC the government is given the power to take money from one citizen and give it directly to another if the second citizen unless its in payment for providing a good or service to the government. So far no one has.

This is the same. The amendment CLEARLY only applies to governments (as noted with the references the state) and the congress has no power to apply it to individuals.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Many states have also passed legislation designed to prevent discrimination in business transactions. You can hate anyone you want... but if you are in business you still have to trade with anyone with the price of admission. I am pretty sure you know this.


And those states may or may not actually have that power under their state constitutions but that's a horse of a different color.


I had a few points to bring out when I started this thread. One was the fact that many personal freedoms are being stripped from us. Either taken by force or traded for something. The latter is sad, the former is criminal.

Another was the fact that just because you don't like how someone believes doesn't give you the right/power/freedom to use the force of law to stop them from acting on their beliefs. 

A third was the fact if the government has the power to force a business to sell to a specific group it also has the power to force a business to NOT sell to a specific group. And both of those powers are scary things for a government to have.

A fourth, which I think I've done, was to get people to think about the freedom, theirs and others.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> You are all over the place! You're very good at inventing scenarios and going from point A to point Z. I really can't have a conversation with you when you're all over the place like this. It's pretty simple what I believe, and I've said it multiple times in this thread. I'm sorry if you've not understood it.


I don't think I am, I'm just using extreme examples to make a point. My point has always been do you believe in personal freedom or not. And if not where do you draw the line. You still evaded the question. Do you think you should have the freedom to sell your personal property, your cat toys, to only the people you want or not?




MDKatie said:


> I know you think individuals should be able to run his/her business and do whatever he wants (ie, have no rules at ALL), but I simply don't agree. It is morally wrong to treat people badly because you don't agree with them.


Maybe now you will see my point. You think something is "morally wrong" therefore you think you should have the power, via government control, to force someone to follow your moral beliefs, correct? Now what if your moral beliefs happen to be opposite of what the majority of the population's morals are and YOU are the one being be forced to abandon your morals to follow theirs? 

Do you really, really, REALLY want the government to have the power to force you to act in what it sees as the proper moral way?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, a business owner still has all their rights and freedoms intact... so long as they comply with the law. If someone files a complaint against them, they still have all their rights intact, and warrants must be issued in order to search their property, but the law may do so and investigate the alleged violation. If they find sufficient evidence in their investigation they may prosecute... but the business owner still has all his rights intact and is entitled to a jury trial and legal representation and is still considered innocent until proven guilty by the court.


Not if a business does not have the rights of an individual, as was suggested, he doesn't. Seeing as how the business owner loses his right to practice his religion as he sees fit (that pesky 1st amendment) what's to say the government can't just take the rest of them as well?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I worked for a Holocaust Survivor, tattooed and survived the camps. He served everyone in his business and when he was faced with bigoted people he still served them and also made an attempt to put a face and reality to the situation by attempting to educate the offenders. That was when I was in my early 20's and he is my inspiration every day when dealing with bigots.
> 
> He faced the worst kind of bigotry and vowed to not be one of those people.


And you HONESTLY think he would have served someone dressed like this:










or this?










If so he's a better man than any of the ones I have dealt with.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Not if a business does not have the rights of an individual, as was suggested, he doesn't. Seeing as how the business owner loses his right to practice his religion as he sees fit (that pesky 1st amendment) what's to say the government can't just take the rest of them as well?


But your scenario only works if you assume the the business and the individual are inseparable. If one incorporates or operates their business in any way to separate their personal assets from their business assets do the the same rules regarding rights apply in your world. Can they have one religion as an individual and a separate religion as a business?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> And you HONESTLY think he would have served someone dressed like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so he's a better man than any of the ones I have dealt with.


Yes, He was very determined to make this a better world and he believed that it was everyone's job to work towards educating away bigotry.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I answered your question based on the facts you presented. As you have altered them the answer really doesn't change. If the shop owner finds any part of the conversation offensive he can ask those speaking to not further broach the subjects in question or to leave the shop. If the patrons choose to play by his consistently applied code of behavior he has the obligation to allow them purchase his products.
> 
> Ok, just want to make sure were you stood. I can always agree to disagree with someone.
> 
> 
> The question of search and seizure is slightly more nuanced. As an individual I have the right to deny entry to my dwelling to law enforcement unless they meet certain criteria. If I'm running a business with access to the public I have no expectation of privacy from the police in those public areas. If I leave a business ledger outlining illegal activities open on a counter I cannot expect an officer of the law to avert their eyes. I would say that a business has much the same expectation to privacy for those things not accesable to the general public as does anyone else.


Now I'm confused. Are you now saying business do have the same rights as an individual? You say that there are public areas of a business which the police an look at but there are private areas which are protected by constitutional "rights". This is just like you and your house. The police have the full right to look into your front yard, i.e. the public area, but they have no right to come into your house, i.e. the private area.

If a business doesn't have the rights of an individual then why should it expect anything within that business to be considered out of bounds for a government search?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> But your scenario only works if you assume the the business and the individual are inseparable.


I wasn't the one who said a business did not have the same rights as individuals. But I have said before a business is like the square root of -1, we treat it as if its a real thing but it doesn't really exist. Its easy to prove, when a business does something illegal what do you see the cops putting handcuffs on?




mmoetc said:


> If one incorporates or operates their business in any way to separate their personal assets from their business assets do the the same rules regarding rights apply in your world. Can they have one religion as an individual and a separate religion as a business?


I don't think so but the government seems to expect them to.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Now I'm confused. Are you now saying business do have the same rights as an individual? You say that there are public areas of a business which the police an look at but there are private areas which are protected by constitutional "rights". This is just like you and your house. The police have the full right to look into your front yard, i.e. the public area, but they have no right to come into your house, i.e. the private area.
> 
> If a business doesn't have the rights of an individual then why should it expect anything within that business to be considered out of bounds for a government search?


Walking past and looking into a yard or window is not the same as entering that yard or climbing through that window. If, on the other hand, I posted a sign inviting the public to walk through my front garden I could hardly complain about an unlawful search if an officer availed himself of the privilege and saw my pot plantation.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Here's where you and I disagree. I think congress was not given that power but it _*TOOK*_ them. There is NOTHING in that amendment which gives the congress power to force an individual to act as congress thinks he should.


Congress passed the fourteenth amendment according to the rules set forth in article 5, it was then submitted to the states and was ratified properly. This process, well defined in article 5 is what gave congress this power to pass necessary legislation in order to execute the amendment. As to congress not having the power to force an individual to act how congress thinks they should... how are you with allowing anyone to rob banks? I am pretty sure congress can legitimately force people to stop robbing banks... or kidnapping your kiddos and holding them for ransom. 



watcher said:


> There are a great number of powers congress has taken to which there in no constitutional authority. I have asked for years for someone to point out to me where in the USC the government is given the power to take money from one citizen and give it directly to another if the second citizen unless its in payment for providing a good or service to the government. So far no one has.


One needs only to look at the supreme court rulings on this one. While I am in your camp on this issue the supreme court saw it differently with the advent of FDR's givaway programs of the 30s. While those issues were hotly contested early in his regime, he was eventually able to persuade enough justices to re evaluate thier positions on it and rule in his favor... SS and a host of other programs that became known as FDRs "alphabet soup" was the result. 



watcher said:


> This is the same. The amendment CLEARLY only applies to governments (as noted with the references the state) and the congress has no power to apply it to individuals.


on this we will have to agree to disagree. The obvious intent of section one of the fourteenth amendment was to ensure that ALL citizens would be treated equally under the law. IE... everyone has to have the same opportunities to buy, sell, rent, or conduct their business on an equal footing regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity etc. 



watcher said:


> I had a few points to bring out when I started this thread. One was the fact that many personal freedoms are being stripped from us. Either taken by force or traded for something. The latter is sad, the former is criminal.


I agree that many freedoms have been stripped away illegally. The freedom to conduct business should never become one of those freedoms.... especially if you are being denied that right because of your race or religion. 



watcher said:


> Another was the fact that just because you don't like how someone believes doesn't give you the right/power/freedom to use the force of law to stop them from acting on their beliefs.


 Need I remind you of those bank robbers and kidnappers?



watcher said:


> A third was the fact if the government has the power to force a business to sell to a specific group it also has the power to force a business to NOT sell to a specific group. And both of those powers are scary things for a government to have.


You have mentioned this several times... I am still not sure I understand the logic behind it.



watcher said:


> A fourth, which I think I've done, was to get people to think about the freedom, theirs and others.


nuthin wrong with that... especially thinking about others. most folks have no problem thinking of their own.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Yes, He was very determined to make this a better world and he believed that it was everyone's job to work towards educating away bigotry.


You can fix ignorance with education but stupid is unfixable. 

I grew up in a racist/bigoted house in a racist/bigoted area. I can tell you I never saw a racist who stopped believing that his hated race was a lesser race than his. They may have stopped showing it so much and might have even public changed but in their hearts they still believed it.

The best way to stop bigotry is to get it out in the open. Expose it and let the light of truth dry it up and the winds of freedom blow it away. 

You don't stop it by trying to force people to stop believing or acting on what they believe. IMO, the best way to encourage bigotry is to demand people stop and forcing them to do something they think is wrong.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> The best way to stop bigotry is to get it out in the open. Expose it and let the light of truth dry it up and the winds of freedom blow it away.
> 
> You don't stop it by trying to force people to stop believing or acting on what they believe. IMO, the best way to encourage bigotry is to demand people stop and forcing them to do something they think is wrong.


But you certainly don't stop it by allowing people to continue it.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> You can fix ignorance with education but stupid is unfixable.
> 
> I grew up in a racist/bigoted house in a racist/bigoted area. I can tell you I never saw a racist who stopped believing that his hated race was a lesser race than his. They may have stopped showing it so much and might have even public changed but in their hearts they still believed it.
> 
> The best way to stop bigotry is to get it out in the open. Expose it and let the light of truth dry it up and the winds of freedom blow it away.
> 
> You don't stop it by trying to force people to stop believing or acting on what they believe. IMO, the best way to encourage bigotry is to demand people stop and forcing them to do something they think is wrong.



You can educated by setting a good example. You don't know they can't be educated unless you try. It is bigoted to think they can't be educated unless you try.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Walking past and looking into a yard or window is not the same as entering that yard or climbing through that window. If, on the other hand, I posted a sign inviting the public to walk through my front garden I could hardly complain about an unlawful search if an officer availed himself of the privilege and saw my pot plantation.


You might want to check. Every where I know unless you have a fenced and gated front yard or its posted as required by law anyone can enter your yard if its required to access your house. At least that's what I was told when I was working for the census in 2000. IIRC, they are also allowed to open an unlocked gate to gain entry. But I'm not sure about that, it has been a few years

I do believe the courts have ruled that the police legally an enter your front yard and look into any windows visible from your entryway w/o a warrant. They can also stand on the sidewalk (in most cases your property which you have given public access to) or sit in the car on the street and look into your windows.


----------



## where I want to

I believe that government is a very poor tool to micromanage social ills. It tries to fix with a club that creates more damage than ever existed before it's application.
Government has a vicious cycle where it takes a bit from the individual to make life better for some. Then it has made itself responsible for those some and, surprise, those some want a bit more. So government turns around a takes a bit more, offers much but not all of that to the some again.
It happens again and again and again. Both in money and freedom.
Pretty soon the ones who have been taken from notice that not just a little has been lost and there seems no end to the taking- it's always just a bit more.
And that is why the Constitution was designed to restrict government from using its power to take. To keep the some from using a government to eat up the whole world.
Unfortunately the eaters constantly clamor for feeding. They are the noise always heard.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Congress passed the fourteenth amendment according to the rules set forth in article 5, it was then submitted to the states and was ratified properly. This process, well defined in article 5 is what gave congress this power to pass necessary legislation in order to execute the amendment. As to congress not having the power to force an individual to act how congress thinks they should... how are you with allowing anyone to rob banks? I am pretty sure congress can legitimately force people to stop robbing banks... or kidnapping your kiddos and holding them for ransom.


They took those powers as well but at least they used the "logic" that a bank robber or kidnapper 'could' cross state lines therefore making it a interstate crime which would give the feds the right to interfere. After all isn't it strange that taking money from a bank is a federal crime but murder isn't?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> One needs only to look at the supreme court rulings on this one. While I am in your camp on this issue the supreme court saw it differently with the advent of FDR's givaway programs of the 30s. While those issues were hotly contested early in his regime, he was eventually able to persuade enough justices to re evaluate thier positions on it and rule in his favor... SS and a host of other programs that became known as FDRs "alphabet soup" was the result.


The USSC once ruled segregation was constitutional. That didn't make it so did it?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> on this we will have to agree to disagree. The obvious intent of section one of the fourteenth amendment was to ensure that ALL citizens would be treated equally under the law. IE... everyone has to have the same opportunities to buy, sell, rent, or conduct their business on an equal footing regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity etc.


I guess we will. As I have stated you have no right to any of those things therefore not getting them for any reason is not a constitutional issue.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree that many freedoms have been stripped away illegally. The freedom to conduct business should never become one of those freedoms.... especially if you are being denied that right because of your race or religion.


So you feel a person has a right to something even if that something must be provided by another? 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> You have mentioned this several times... I am still not sure I understand the logic behind it.


Its simple. The government has taken the power to force a business to sell to people therefore there's nothing to stop them from taking the power to force a business to NOT sell to people. Example. What's to stop the government from preventing people from selling to anyone who is a member of the Klan and the only reason would be because of how the Klan believes the races should be treated and therefore its a "hate group"? 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> nuthin wrong with that... especially thinking about others. most folks have no problem thinking of their own.


"most folks have no problem thinking of their own.". . ."_most folks have no problem thinking of their own._" . . ."_*most folks have no problem thinking of their own.*_". . .good gravy man where have you been? You do need to get out more. Most people today don't think they just spout what they have heard or are told they should spout. When you try to get them to explain why they think they have nothing to support it. Hit them with logic based questions and they'll go screaming into the night.


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> But you certainly don't stop it by allowing people to continue it.


Sure you can. Ever heard the saying the best thing you can do when an idiot is talking is to shut up and let him talk? By allowing a bigot to openly act like a bigot you allow those who don't support his actions to see it and be able to avoid him.


----------



## MDKatie

watcher said:


> Sure you can. Ever heard the saying the best thing you can do when an idiot is talking is to shut up and let him talk? By allowing a bigot to openly act like a bigot you allow those who don't support his actions to see it and be able to avoid him.


You're right. Our country was wrong to force the stop of owning slaves. And we were definitely wrong to stop segregation. Those slave owners would have kept up their shenanigans and the slaves could have simply chosen to avoid them.


----------



## where I want to

MDKatie said:


> You're right. Our country was wrong to force the stop of owning slaves. And we were definitely wrong to stop segregation. Those slave owners would have kept up their shenanigans and the slaves could have simply chosen to avoid them.


What a silly extreme to use to support a little argument. I suppose you advocate a war and killing of hundreds of thousands of people to see a bakery sells a cake to gay people.
The Great Cake War.


----------



## Vash

MDKatie said:


> You're right. *Our country was wrong to force the stop of owning slaves. * And we were definitely wrong to stop segregation. Those slave owners would have kept up their shenanigans and the slaves could have simply chosen to avoid them.


You should read up on some history before trying to apply this as some kind of ludicrous parallel with the topic at hand.


----------



## MDKatie

where I want to said:


> What a silly extreme to use to support a little argument. I suppose you advocate a war and killing of hundreds of thousands of people to see a bakery sells a cake to gay people.
> The Great Cake War.


It's no more extreme than watcher's arguments about using firearms to force business owners to sell to people. It's about personal freedom, right? And those slave owners said it was their RIGHT to be able to own slaves, and they didn't want the gov't interfering in their right to do what they wanted!


----------



## Vash

MDKatie said:


> It's no more extreme than *watcher's arguments about using firearms to force business owners to sell to people.* It's about personal freedom, right? And those slave owners said it was their RIGHT to be able to own slaves, and they didn't want the gov't interfering in their right to do what they wanted!


You still don't understand that analogy? :bored:


----------



## joebill

All in all, I can't imagine where the concept comes from that it is your "RIGHT" to force someone to work for you, even if you are willing to pay him. Talk about slavery if you want, but the only moral difference is the payment.....otherwise, it is identical. 

I suppose that means that if somebody offers me a job as a bartender in a gay bar, I have to take it, simply because I have been looking for that kind of work? Think about it, just for a bit. You answer a job listing for a "hostess" and find out that the business is a nude bar or a brothel, or the job is for someone to care for animals and the place holds cock fights and dog fights.

As an employee, you get to choose where you work and whom you work for, but there is absolutely no assurance that has to continue, because once you establish a prinicple, any idiot is perfectly capable of carrying it to it's stupid conclusion. 

Now, I read where students in some California high school are free to choose which bathroom and which LOCKER ROOM they want to use. Nice, EH?

Now, we will soon come to the point where advertising for a roomate will put you in a position where you have to relent to one that is the same sex as you and has the hots for you or else get sued for discrimination.

How's about we do a small change and assume, for once, that when the constitution says that we cannot interfere with the free practice of religion, it really means that, and if that free practice gets in the way of business too much, somebody will open a competing business that will do well? No doubt, hundreds of aspiring bakers are setting up do do gay wedding cakes as we speak, and there is no reason in the world why anybody should have to do one if it offends him, except somebody WANTS to offend him, which is perfectly legal, since he does not happen to be gay.

Obviously, equal protection under the law is not a factor in our current circumstances....Joe


----------



## joebill

MDKatie said:


> It's no more extreme than watcher's arguments about using firearms to force business owners to sell to people. It's about personal freedom, right? And those slave owners said it was their RIGHT to be able to own slaves, and they didn't want the gov't interfering in their right to do what they wanted!


OK, if you truly do not understand it, I'll explain it for you.

Anytime you use government to force your issue on anohter citizen, you are literally putting a gun to his head, because that is the force that makes government effective..........and that alone. Do not delude yourself that you are joining in a mutually agreeable arbitration. You are placing yourself right square in the middle of somebody else's life, using the lethal and well armed government as your implement of force, even if your own personal sensibilities would not allow you to personally touch a gun, you are using one or a thousand of them, just the same......get it?.......Joe


----------



## MDKatie

My argument about slavery was extreme, I know. I said it for a reason. Watcher's whole "let a bigot be a bigot and people can just avoid him" is just plain silly, and we're naive to think bigots will self-correct and suddenly be nice. As much as some people don't want to admit it, we HAVE to make laws protecting people from discrimination because society was/is discriminating!


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> And you HONESTLY think he would have served someone dressed like this:
> 
> or this?
> 
> If so *he's a better man* than any of the ones I have dealt with.


I think you've brought up a good point.

Who is the better man, the one who can live and let live or the one who cannot?


----------



## watcher

MDKatie said:


> My argument about slavery was extreme, I know. I said it for a reason. Watcher's whole "let a bigot be a bigot and people can just avoid him" is just plain silly, and we're naive to think bigots will self-correct and suddenly be nice. As much as some people don't want to admit it, we HAVE to make laws protecting people from discrimination because society was/is discriminating!


And you think laws are going to change them? Just who is being naive here?

Most people will tell you they rather deal with a outspoken bigot than one who covers it in sweetness. 

Think about it this way. You are green and looking for a job. You go to two places, in one the owner tells you he hates green people and wouldn't hire you if you were the last subhuman on earth.

The other tells you he feels sorry for you because you green people have so abused for so long. He goes on the tell you that he knows because of this abuse green people do not have the abilities of other people but he's willing to make allowances for that. To help you he'll start you in a very simple job and assign another worker to watch over you to make sure you get the job done correctly. 

Now which one of those do you see as the bigot? If you didn't say both you are wrong. Now which one's actions, in your opinion, are the bigger danger to the future of green people?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> I think you've brought up a good point.
> 
> Who is the better man, the one who can live and let live or the one who cannot?


I'll do something I don't usually do. I'll answer your question with a question.

Who between us is looking to use the force of law to prevent people from being able to live as they wish?


----------



## where I want to

MDKatie said:


> My argument about slavery was extreme, I know. I said it for a reason. Watcher's whole "let a bigot be a bigot and people can just avoid him" is just plain silly, and we're naive to think bigots will self-correct and suddenly be nice. As much as some people don't want to admit it, we HAVE to make laws protecting people from discrimination because society was/is discriminating!


No we don't. I imagine that requiring a business to put a sign in the window saying "we have a religious objection to offering our services to some people and will not provide service in these cases" would find that a lot of people would simply stop patronizing them whether they are themselves gay or not. The business would fold. 
This is not the same thing as the racial bias that was in existence in the south where the laws, history and beliefs controlled everyone's life.


----------



## Vash

MDKatie said:


> we HAVE to make laws protecting people from discrimination because society was/is discriminating!


Society frowns upon killing people (murder). There are laws against it. It still happens.


----------



## dixiegal62

where I want to said:


> No we don't. I imagine that requiring a business to put a sign in the window saying "we have a religious objection to offering our services to some people and will not provide service in these cases" would find that a lot of people would simply stop patronizing them whether they are themselves gay or not. The business would fold.
> This is not the same thing as the racial bias that was in existence in the south where the laws, history and beliefs controlled everyone's life.


 
I would say the racial bias that existed in this country not just the south and add it still does exist.


----------



## joebill

No worse bigot than the one who assumes a man, because of his race, is incapbable of living his life without the guns of government backing him up......what an insult, to treat a man like a child because of his race! AND what a truly effective way to promote, extend, perpetuate racial division.....fan the sick flames under the pretense of helping someone.....Joe


----------



## dixiegal62

getting off topic


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> I'll do something I don't usually do. I'll answer your question with a question.
> 
> Who between us is looking to use the force of law to prevent people from being able to live as they wish?


The discussion is not about how people live, it's about how people conduct business.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> The discussion is not about how people live, it's about how people conduct business.


 
If you own a small business it is how you live. It's not a 9-5 job.


----------



## homstdr74

Vash said:


> Society frowns upon killing people (murder). There are laws against it. It still happens.


They can pass all the laws in the world to try to make people like other people, but all they ever seem to accomplish is to deepen the dislike and widen the divide.


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> If you own a small business it is how you live. It's not a 9-5 job.


Then the manner in which the person conducts their small business will determine how well they live.


----------



## watcher

dixiegal62 said:


> I would say the racial bias that existed in this country not just the south and add it still does exist.


Sure it does. Just look at the laws/rules/regulations governments have about race in hiring, school enrollment, ownership of business working for the government, etc. Then look at all the stats on how many of each race is in what the governments require to be kept.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> The discussion is not about how people live, it's about how people conduct business.


Nope, the discussion is about personal freedom. But isn't your job or business part of your life?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Then the manner in which the person conducts their small business will determine how well they live.


True. And many business owners would live a lot better if there was not so government control over their lives. 

I know several business owners who could make a lot more money but they put their beliefs ahead of just making money. And they'd be the first ones to tell you its a much better way to live.


----------



## Paumon

I can see only two solutions to the problem. When you have such a young country, an experiment in civilization only a few hundred years old but already being the 3rd most highly populated country in the world with everyone wanting personal freedoms and all under the rule of one government - you can do what other proven civilizations that are up to 10,000 years old have done or else you can divide up into several nations. 

If you do what the many thousands of years old highly populated civilizations have done everyone will lose many of what they want to claim as individual and personal freedoms but everyone can continue to exist together under one government. 

If you divide up into several nations with several governments so as to accomodate all the personal freedoms then each nation can determine what personal freedoms the citizens of each nation will have and then the people can choose which nation they want to live in in accordance with the personal freedoms they desire for themselves.

:grin:


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> If you divide up into several nations with several governments so as to accomodate all the personal freedoms then each nation can determine what personal freedoms the citizens of each nation will have and then the people can choose which nation they want to live in in accordance with the personal freedoms they desire for themselves.
> 
> :grin:


That's what the Confederacy (the south) wanted ...


----------



## joebill

MDKatie said:


> My argument about slavery was extreme, I know. I said it for a reason. Watcher's whole "let a bigot be a bigot and people can just avoid him" is just plain silly, and we're naive to think bigots will self-correct and suddenly be nice. As much as some people don't want to admit it, we HAVE to make laws protecting people from discrimination because society was/is discriminating!


Of course people are "discriminating", and most of them are proud of it. In fact, many of the folks who are most bigoted are one ones with laws in place protecting them from bigotry.

There is two-sided mutual bigotry between economic classes, between racial groups, both of which are regarded as minorities, regional bigotrys treasured by folks who have never been to the places they hate, assumptions drawn about political ideologies that are more nearly fairy tales than truth, but perpetuated by the mainstream media.

Even (or especailly) Obama is a bigot, who acturally said of his Grandmother that she is a "typical white person" in that she was scared of meeting blacks on the street......an attitude shared, by his own admission, by Jesse Jackson who talked about his great shame to notice that when he met a group of young men walking towards him at night, he was releived when they were white.

I do not know how much of liberal America understands why they are being led, like sheep, into promoting this divisive behavior, but rest assured, the day the democrat party can find no more of what they label "opression", there will no longer be a democrat party, because without someone who percieves themselves to be the underclass in some manner or other, they will serve no purpose whatsoever.....Joe


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> I can see only two solutions to the problem. When you have such a young country, an experiment in civilization only a few hundred years old but already being the 3rd most highly populated country in the world with everyone wanting personal freedoms and all under the rule of one government - you can do what other proven civilizations that are up to 10,000 years old have done or else you can divide up into several nations.
> 
> If you do what the many thousands of years old highly populated civilizations have done everyone will lose many of what they want to claim as individual and personal freedoms but everyone can continue to exist together under one government.
> 
> If you divide up into several nations with several governments so as to accomodate all the personal freedoms then each nation can determine what personal freedoms the citizens of each nation will have and then the people can choose which nation they want to live in in accordance with the personal freedoms they desire for themselves.
> 
> :grin:


I don't know what the grin is about, but that is probably where we are going. States are moving now to assert their rights in a number of areas. Our federal government has run roughshod over state's rights far too long, and the states that are best at shutting them out are doing the best economically as we speak, while the traditionally liberal states are, by and large, sinking beneath the waves.....Joe


----------



## Paumon

joebill said:


> I don't know what the grin is about,


That's a grin of self satisfaction since I have solved all of your problems for you by pointing out the only two options available to you.

:happy2: :lookout: eep:


----------



## Paumon

joebill said:


> Our federal government has run roughshod over state's rights far too long, and the states that are best at shutting them out are doing the best economically as we speak, while the traditionally liberal states are, by and large, sinking beneath the waves.....Joe


I think maybe only in America. If you look at that link I posted earlier of the global freedom indices you'll see that the nations that are doing the best economically, politically, socially and otherwise are those most liberal nations that also have the most personal freedoms without discrimination and bigotry, including less racial, sexual and religious discrimination.


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> I think maybe only in America. If you look at that link I posted earlier of the global freedom indices you'll see that the nations that are doing the best economically, politically, socially and otherwise are those most liberal nations that also have the most personal freedoms without discrimination and bigotry, including less racial, sexual and religious discrimination.


You would be shocked ( or probably not) to fully understand how little I care about different cultures than our own and what they can make work, and what they or you define as "working". Any nation whose citizens are at the mercy of their government for their personal freedoms does not have any.

Many cultures which consider themselves as superior are composed of disarmed citizens whose lives are planned by their government, for better or most often, worse. Not many modern cultures were more liberal in their governments than the soviets, and they nearly starved themselves to death.

One could then move on to Cuba, with it's citizens longingly looking at inner tubes and wishing they had a coin to flip to help them make the choice between paddling and staying there. socialism at it's best.

Yes, we have the happy danes, which remind me, the ones I converse with, of the stepford wives, and God bless and keep them as and where they are, because they are happy, but their culture is not ours, either.

In fact, few countries have as many folks trying to get in my any means required as this one.
Below is a link to a breakdown to the nations that "progressives" consider the top 10 countries in the world.

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-socially-advanced-countries-2013-4?op=1

The fact that most of them are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy does not seem to bother them in the least, or make them think that perhaps the citizens of those places likie Spain might be just a tad insecure.

Here is what it had to say about Canada;

"Canada ranked 1st in Personal Safety but 8th in Nutrition and Medical Care and 15th in Air, Water, and Sanitation. And it ranked at 47th for Ecosystem Sustainability (remember the Alberta oil sands?).

The country excelled in Opportunity, where it was 4th overall, and 1st in Equity and Inclusion and Personal Rights, but 9th in Access to Higher education "

And the US;

"The U.S. lags in Basic Human Needs, ranking 13th in Air, Water, And Sanitation as well as Personal Safety, but improves in Shelter, where it's ranked 5th. (Ranking 48th in Ecosystem Sustainability does not help any of this.)

The Land of the Free ranked first in Opportunity by having the top Access to Higher Education, 4th-ranked Equity and Inclusion, and 6th-ranked Personal Rights. However, it falls a little short in Personal Freedom and Choice at 7th."

All of which, on both counts, is a mish-mash of opinions that bear little or no relationship to the standards either of us judge our own countries by. Personally, I would not live in Canada for anything, because too much government makes me itch like I had permanemnt houseguests, but it seems to suit a lot of Canadians, as long as they can head south from time to time.

I did find it interestinjg that those who wrote that article thought that we were the "land of opportunity" because of our education system rather than our normally business friendly economic system, which is, of course, backwards, which is only the tip of all the whacky stuff they wrote.

I did not see your chart, and I'm sure that if it's on the internet, it has to be true in it's entirety.......but such things are also subject to personal opinion and preferrances, and a disarmed populace having greater personal freedoms than an armed one makes me giggle.....Joe


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> That's a grin of self satisfaction since I have solved all of your problems for you by pointing out the only two options available to you.
> 
> :happy2: :lookout: eep:


Actually, you missed one, which is returning our culture to the one which made this the most spectacularly successfull nation in the history of the world...Joe


----------



## Paumon

Which culture was that? You didn't have so many people 50 or 100 years ago as you do now. Can that return of culture be done now without reducing the population by half?


----------



## where I want to

Actually I suspect that liberal tendencies come after success, not the other way around. While there is a financial flush, all those wonderful benefits seem so neccessary. A little financial hardship means that a pinch will be felt and those generous give aways look less wonderful. And it is so much harder to reel in the spending than let it out.


----------



## JeffreyD

where I want to said:


> Actually I suspect that liberal tendencies come after success, not the other way around. While there is a financial flush, all those wonderful benefits seem so neccessary. A little financial hardship means that a pinch will be felt and those generous give aways look less wonderful. And it is so much harder to reel in the spending than let it out.


This will cause the demise of America! (That, or an asteroid! !!)


----------



## where I want to

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0305/The-Netherlands-bid-to-trim-its-welfare-state

How very timely- seems the Dutch are trying to transform themselves into a "participatory" rather than a welfare state as financial reality is knocking on their door.


----------



## joebill

Had nothing to do with population.

had to do with personal inititive, liberty, low regulation, low taxes, ambition, free markets, the rewards of hard work and the punishments that came with slacking off. The only thing preventing prosperity spreading like a virus in this country is libreralism from both political parties. If it does not sink us before we sink it, we will be the energy capital of the world, for centuries, and if we fall over and drown in debt trying to insure that nobody has a dollar that somebody else needs worse, well, the energy will still be there for the survivors.

It's all well and good to label a philospophy as "progressive" but the fact is that it most often leads to hardship and poverty, as does religious environmentalism. Man is a slow learner, but he DOES learn, eventually, what a lie looks like and sounds like. Often he has to learn the same thing a dozen times before it makes an impression.

Liberty is the natural condition of mankind, of that I am sure, and in the end, nature always wins. I have seen it before and if I do not live long enough to see it again, I will be smiling from my grave when it finally comes to pass. Liberalism is like crabgrass in a pasture. A royal pain to eradicate, but well worth the effort.....Joe


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> I think maybe only in America. If you look at that link I posted earlier of the global freedom indices you'll see that the nations that are doing the best economically, politically, socially and otherwise are those most liberal nations that also have the most personal freedoms without discrimination and bigotry, including less racial, sexual and religious discrimination.


HA! I lived in Canada for 7 years, its the same up if not worse there no matter how you want to paint it. A gay 17 yr old lived a few houses down from us, the adults and kids treated him terribly. My last year of school there where 2 black kids that moved there, they where treated like freaks at a Canadian school they where the only black kids in that whole school talk about segregating and the people acted like they had never seen a black person before. Something I've never witnessed myself here in Alabama. I can safely say some of the most racist people I met where from Canada, the only place I have ever seen more was in New Jersey.


----------



## JeffreyD

joebill said:


> Had nothing to do with population.
> 
> had to do with personal inititive, liberty, low regulation, low taxes, ambition, free markets, the rewards of hard work and the punishments that came with slacking off. The only thing preventing prosperity spreading like a virus in this country is libreralism from both political parties. If it does not sink us before we sink it, we will be the energy capital of the world, for centuries, and if we fall over and drown in debt trying to insure that nobody has a dollar that somebody else needs worse, well, the energy will still be there for the survivors.
> 
> It's all well and good to label a philospophy as "progressive" but the fact is that it most often leads to hardship and poverty, as does religious environmentalism. Man is a slow learner, but he DOES learn, eventually, what a lie looks like and sounds like. Often he has to learn the same thing a dozen times before it makes an impression.
> 
> Liberty is the natural condition of mankind, of that I am sure, and in the end, nature always wins. I have seen it before and if I do not live long enough to see it again, I will be smiling from my grave when it finally comes to pass. Liberalism is like crabgrass in a pasture. A royal pain to eradicate, but well worth the effort.....Joe


Very well said ^^^^^^^^^^!


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> HA! I lived in Canada for 7 years, .....


That's really interesting. What city were you going to school in and how long ago was that? Considering your age now (early 50's) and your own children are adults now that must have been about 30+ years ago or was it more than that?

I'm not sure what your Canadian school experiences in your youth 3 or 4 decades ago has to do with the global freedom indices today though.


----------



## Paumon

joebill said:


> Had nothing to do with population..... <snip> .........Joe


You said the third option was a _"return to the culture which made this the most spectacularly successfull nation in the history of the world..." _

I really only wanted to know when you thought that was because to the best of my understanding that happened when your population was less than half of what it is now. I don't think it's practical to expect to be able to return to your idealistic culture with the same kind of results today when the nation's population has doubled now.


----------



## Paumon

Not least of which, the racial divide, the discrimination and bigotry, the gender inequalities and loss of freedoms that existed for so many people that many decades ago was so much worse than it is today. Sorry, I just don't get how anyone could want to refer back to that time in history as an ideal culture in a topic about personal freedoms. :shrug:


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> That's really interesting. What city were you going to school in and how long ago was that? Considering your age now (early 50's) and your own children are adults now that must have been about 30+ years ago or was it more than that?
> 
> I'm not sure what your Canadian school experiences in your youth 3 or 4 decades ago has to do with the global freedom indices today though.


 
A little town on the seaway called Cardinal in Ontario, yeah it was awhile ago late 70s and early 80s but I still have family and friends there and they do not paint the perfect picture you portray on here.


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> A little town on the seaway called Cardinal in Ontario, yeah it was awhile ago late 70s and early 80s but I still have family and friends there and they do not paint the perfect picture you portray on here.


Okay, I understand better now.  Cardinal is a rather isolated little village in the township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal with a population of approximately 1,000 people in the village now. Cardinal didn't amalgamate with Edwardsburgh until 2001 so 35 years ago the village of Cardinal would have had much less people with an all white population residing there. So for sure it would have been unusual to see 2 black kids in an all white school. It would be typical of monocultural villages anywhere in the world. The behaviour of children in an obscure low population monocultural village like Cardinal 35 years ago cannot be considered representative of the behaviours of multicultural millions in big towns and cities in Canada in the 21st century. But I am sorry you have such bad memories about your schoolgirl experiences in that little village.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> Okay, I understand better now.  Cardinal is a rather isolated little village in the township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal with a population of approximately 1,000 people in the village now. Cardinal didn't amalgamate with Edwardsburgh until 2001 so 35 years ago the village of Cardinal would have had much less people with an all white population residing there. So for sure it would have been unusual to see 2 black kids in an all white school. It would be typical of monocultural villages anywhere in the world. The behaviour of children in an obscure low population monocultural village like Cardinal 35 years ago cannot be considered representative of the behaviours of multicultural millions in big towns and cities in Canada in the 21st century. But I am sorry you have such bad memories about your schoolgirl experiences in that little village.


 
Oh ok I get it so Canadians are only morally superior if they come from big cities. :facepalm: That leaves out a lot of your fellow country men. Odd though that I have always lived in small towns in a lot of different places and have only seen that behavior in a small town in a morally superior country


----------



## beowoulf90

dixiegal62 said:


> *Oh ok I get it so Canadians are only morally superior if they come from big cities.* :facepalm: That leaves out a lot of your fellow country men. Odd though that I have always lived in small towns in a lot of different places and have only seen that behavior in a small town in a morally superior country


Yea even their Mayors smoke crack, then deny it, then admit it..Sounds like a certain scumbag who voted for it before they voted against it..

But I guess that is their delusion of superiority..


----------



## notwyse

If you were my brothers and sisters my mother would of pointed out long ago that life is not fair. She would of knocked you off the high horse. She pointed out to me that blaming others for my failures was an excuse. She showed me people of different cultures colors sexual orientation religions were just as good and often better than myself. From the first time she made us share our bag of suckers with the gypsies she taught us that there except for the grace of god we could be. I miss my mother.


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> Not least of which, the racial divide, the discrimination and bigotry, the gender inequalities and loss of freedoms that existed for so many people that many decades ago was so much worse than it is today. Sorry, I just don't get how anyone could want to refer back to that time in history as an ideal culture in a topic about personal freedoms. :shrug:


Simple. The only TRUE personal freedoms that count come with prosperity, not government meddling. The black guys I worked with in Chicago in the 60's had no complaints about equality. We were all working in Industry, making good money, they had skills that were in demand, they were secure.

Ask Denzel Washington how oppressed he is, he'll tell you that nobody should use race as an excuse not to succeed. You think Ellen Degenerous would have any trouble getting a wedding cake?

People working hard, taking care of themselves, making plenty of money have no time for hurt feelings......or if they do, they are whiners. Bring back the prosperity and the other problems diminish on their own. Ruin the nation with debt, NOBODY will have any rights except what they can secure for themselves........Joe


----------



## notwyse

And remember that wars are very very expensive. We did not beat the USSR in a war. Russia went broke.


----------



## where I want to

notwyse said:


> If you were my brothers and sisters my mother would of pointed out long ago that life is not fair. She would of knocked you off the high horse. She pointed out to me that blaming others for my failures was an excuse. She showed me people of different cultures colors sexual orientation religions were just as good and often better than myself. From the first time she made us share our bag of suckers with the gypsies she taught us that there except for the grace of god we could be. I miss my mother.


Again you assume that wanting the government to stay out of the way your run your business or your personal life is an admission of hate and bigotry. That does simplify complex issues for you- if a person does not agree with you, then you safely assume they are a bad person and you can safely berate them from the heights of your superiority.
Thinking through an argument is such hard work.


----------



## where I want to

notwyse said:


> And remember that wars are very very expensive. We did not beat the USSR in a war. Russia went broke.


Can't you see the internal conflict in this statement? Running out of the wherewithal to fight longer is the end of every war. Not that war is being advocated- you are just assuming that's what is means to disagree with Obama's actions.


----------



## painterswife

joebill said:


> Simple. The only TRUE personal freedoms that count come with prosperity, not government meddling. The black guys I worked with in Chicago in the 60's had no complaints about equality. We were all working in Industry, making good money, they had skills that were in demand, they were secure.
> 
> Ask Denzel Washington how oppressed he is, he'll tell you that nobody should use race as an excuse not to succeed. You think Ellen Degenerous would have any trouble getting a wedding cake?
> 
> People working hard, taking care of themselves, making plenty of money have no time for hurt feelings......or if they do, they are whiners. Bring back the prosperity and the other problems diminish on their own. Ruin the nation with debt, NOBODY will have any rights except what they can secure for themselves........Joe


There are always those that will never have prosperity. Why are they any less deserving of being not discriminated against? Such a bunch of hooey.


----------



## Evons hubby

notwyse said:


> And remember that wars are very very expensive. We did not beat the USSR in a war. Russia went broke.


This is quite true. Our war in Iraq came with a price tag of nearly a trillion dollars over the course of the ten years it drug out. Our war on drugs has cost us even greater amounts over the same time period...the war on poverty...over a trillion dollars last year alone!


----------



## homstdr74

notwyse said:


> And remember that wars are very very expensive. We did not beat the USSR in a war. Russia went broke.


The National Debt is $17,409,752,000,000 and climbing every second. If that doesnât mean *weâre* broke, I donât know what does, unless itâs twice as much or three times as much orâ¦â¦â¦.ad infinitumâ¦â¦.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


----------



## joebill

painterswife said:


> There are always those that will never have prosperity. Why are they any less deserving of being not discriminated against? Such a bunch of hooey.


If you think I have never been discriminated against, you are very much mistaken. I have simply found the types of folks I can deal with on an equal basis and leave the rest alone. Life is too short to deal with folks who don't like me or think Psoriasis is catching.

And, yes, "the poor we will always have with us", as promised, and after 50 years of Johnson's war on poverty, we have not made a dent in it. Total futility.

If we go back to the prosperity of earlier times, it does not mean we revoke the civil rights act, which a higher percentage of republicans voted for then democrats, by the way. Equating a gay couple being refused a wedding cake on religious grounds to a black man having to sleep in his car when there is a perfectly reasonable motel a block away because of bigotry is what is a bunch of hooey.

If a person is dirt poor and gay, that might be the time he should ponder keeping the gay part to himself long enough to get a job. Sorry, the social problems not curable by money don't amount to much, and in a thriving economy an able bodied person nearly has to run from prosperity to escape it.....and many do, which is their choice......Joe


----------



## paradox

Paumon said:


> If you divide up into several nations with several governments so as to accomodate all the personal freedoms then each nation can determine what personal freedoms the citizens of each nation will have and then the people can choose which nation they want to live in in accordance with the personal freedoms they desire for themselves.
> 
> :grin:


You are close...not several "nations" but several states who have the power to rule themselves as their constituents see fit. All under the banner of one government who provides ONLY a very specific and short list of functions and then leaves the people to their freedom.

We have a nation full of people longing to be left alone to live their lives under their rules and their values (both sides of the isle want this). The way our Constitution was written, this is what was possible. If you were in a state that was too conservative, you could hop over to a very liberal one.

However as the government grabbed more and more power away from this structure it began to make more and more rules over the entire populace which forces a large percentage of our people to have to live under conditions they see as oppressive. Because obviously if we all have to live the same way then each side is going to fight tooth and nail for it to be "their way" and many don't really give a crap if it suits the other side or not. There is never ever going to be a set of rules that everyone is comfortable living by. The only solution is what the founders designed originally, and that was that each state could be its own little social experiment into living the way they wanted to.


----------



## Paumon

paradox said:


> You are close...not several "nations" but several states who have the power to rule themselves as their constituents see fit. All under the banner of one government who provides ONLY a very specific and short list of functions and then leaves the people to their freedom. ...... <snip> ...... The only solution is what the founders designed originally, and that was that each state could be its own little social experiment into living the way they wanted to.


It's already understood all of that with the several states under one federal government was what the original plan was and you've been trying to do that for a few hundred years already. So how is that original plan working out for you now?


----------



## where I want to

Paumon said:


> It's already understood all of that with the several states under one federal government was what the original plan was and you've been trying to do that for a few hundred years already. So how is that original plan working out for you now?


It has it's ups and downs. Right now down. But better to hope for balance eventually than try to pretend that imbalance is a good thing.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> It's already understood all of that with the several states under one federal government was what the original plan was and you've been trying to do that for a few hundred years already. So how is that original plan working out for you now?


That plan worked quite well for a long time until a worldwide economic depression hit in the early part of the twentieth century. The man in power opted to toss the original plan and converted our republic into a socialist dictatorship. We have been in a downward spiral ever since with the feds usurping more and more power.... ignoring all of the principles of the founders original plan. I suppose there is a certain satisfaction that our citizens are still allowed the freedom to elect which task masters will keep us under their control.


----------



## bowdonkey

:goodjob:


Yvonne's hubby said:


> That plan worked quite well for a long time until a worldwide economic depression hit in the early part of the twentieth century. The man in power opted to toss the original plan and converted our republic into a socialist dictatorship. We have been in a downward spiral ever since with the feds usurping more and more power.... ignoring all of the principles of the founders original plan. I suppose there is a certain satisfaction that our citizens are still allowed the freedom to elect which task masters will keep us under their control.


:goodjob:, right on. I just get frustrated knowing there is nothing we can do about it.


----------



## emdeengee

If looking for personal freedom these are listed as the Most Free Countries in the 2013 State of World Liberty Index by VMI - Virginia Military Institute.

New Zealand
Switzerland
Hong Kong
Australia
Finland
Canada
Liechtenstein
Denmark
Ireland
Luxembourg


----------



## Vash

emdeengee said:


> If looking for personal freedom these are listed as the Most Free Countries in the 2013 State of World Liberty Index by VMI - Virginia Military Institute.
> 
> New Zealand
> Switzerland
> Hong Kong
> Australia
> Finland
> Canada
> Liechtenstein
> Denmark
> Ireland
> Luxembourg


You're suggesting leaving and going to one of those countries instead of try to fix ours?


----------



## gjensen

If you want to fix a country, you have to fix the people. That is not going to happen. 

It would take a serious set of hardships to turn us around now. 

As far as this country or that country better than another. Nonsense. Childish argument similar to my daddy is stronger than your daddy. Playground material. I like and dislike things about everywhere.


----------



## emdeengee

Vash said:


> You're suggesting leaving and going to one of those countries instead of try to fix ours?


Leaping lizards. That was a leap.

It is an observation. These countries are considered highest ranking in personal freedom (civil liberties). They must be doing something right therefore it might be worth looking at what they do and how they do it.

There are millions of people who do leave their country of origin rather than stay to fix what is wrong in theirs or what they think is wrong with theirs. They are called emigrants. Nothing wrong with being an emigrant.


----------



## Paumon

Here is the list of freedom indices that I posted before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices



Vash said:


> You're suggesting leaving and going to one of those countries instead of try to fix ours?


I don't think that leaving is what Em is suggesting, and it certainly isn't what I was suggesting when I posted the above noted list before. Leaving won't fix the problems, not to mention that if you try leave because of domestic problems no other countries will accept new immigrants from America on that basis anyway. That is a fact. So leaving is not an option, the only option is to fix what's broken.

I think the idea that Em has, and that I certainly have, is that if people will take the time to look at the freedom lists and the explanations for what makes one place more free than another, then make comparisons with what people in America and other free nations are doing then it would give people a basis to work with so that you can do something to fix your own problems instead of doing nothing but complaining about the problems.

Being insular and not being willing to look at what is making other countries more successful or surpassing America in a variety of freedoms won't help solve your own domestic problems. It's important to be open minded and look at other countries' solutions and successes.


----------



## Paumon

emdeengee said:


> There are millions of people who do leave their country of origin rather than stay to fix what is wrong in theirs or what they think is wrong with theirs. They are called emigrants. Nothing wrong with being an emigrant.


There is one little catch with that which I've discovered from being an active participant on several immigration forums. It's true there are millions of immigrants who leave their countries to get away from wrongnesses happening there and get accepted into other countries with better conditions. But that doesn't necessarily apply to applicants from countries like America, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark etc. - most especially not from America and Canada because those two countries in particular are globally considered to be "privileged" elite countries. 

For Canadians and Americans to be accepted as new immigrants to other first class nations they have to be doing it because they want to be new citizens of those countries, not because they want to get away from problems in America and Canada. They have to have money to invest in their new country and they have to be able to demonstrate that they will be a valuable contributing asset to the new country and an asset to the other citizens of that country, and have specialized skills that will be in high demand. 

It didn't always used to be that way but now "privileged" Canadians and Americans who want to move to other first world nations have to buy their way in and be able to prove beyond a doubt that they really want to be there and that they are needed. When an applicant for immigration from either of those 2 countries is being assessed for approval if they even hint that they want to leave their country because of their disatisfaction or disapproval of politics or economics or social problems in their home country that's an almost automatic grounds for being turned down. The new countries being applied to don't want to admit people who might be malcontents, trouble makers or dissidents that might want to change the way things are run in the new country they immigrate to.

Edited to add: Canada and America are also now doing the same thing to new applicants from each other's country.


----------



## emdeengee

Paumon said:


> There is one little catch with that which I've discovered from being an active participant on several immigration forums. It's true there are millions of immigrants who leave their countries to get away from wrongnesses happening there and get accepted into other countries with better conditions. But that doesn't necessarily apply to applicants from countries like America, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark etc. - most especially not from America and Canada because those two countries in particular are globally considered to be "privileged" elite countries.
> 
> For Canadians and Americans to be accepted as new immigrants to other first class nations they have to be doing it because they want to be new citizens of those countries, not because they want to get away from problems in America and Canada. They have to have money to invest in their new country and they have to be able to demonstrate that they will be a valuable contributing asset to the new country and an asset to the other citizens of that country, and have specialized skills that will be in high demand.
> 
> It didn't always used to be that way but now "privileged" Canadians and Americans who want to move to other first world nations have to buy their way in and be able to prove beyond a doubt that they really want to be there and that they are needed. When an immigrant from either of those 2 countries is being assessed for approval if they even hint that they want to leave their country because of their disatisfaction or disapproval of politics or economics or social problems in their home country that's an almost automatic grounds for being turned down. The new countries being applied to don't want to admit people who might be malcontents, trouble makers or dissidents that might want to change the way things are run in the new country they immigrate to.
> 
> Edited to add: Canada and America are also now doing the same thing to new applicants from each country.


A lot of people who throw what I call election time temper tantrums ("If Bush, Obama, Clinton gets elected I am moving to Canada, Britain, Australia!") have no idea what these countries are actually about. And in fact most people who I know who have threatened to leave don't want another first world country but think they can find paradise and freedom in a less developed country. And by less developed I mean they think there are less laws to bother them and they can do as they please. Usually a question of not really understanding what those countries are about either.

And then there are many people who just want to get away from their troubles so don't leave permanently but apply to work in other First World countries. Since the 2008 financial collapse Canada has had record numbers of Americans applying for Visas - nearly twice as many as Canadians applying to work in the US.

Most first world countries can afford to be selective and thus only accept immigrants who have something to contribute - a career or money or something special. They don't and won't just take anyone who applies.


----------



## Paumon

emdeengee said:


> And in fact most people who I know who have threatened to leave don't want another first world country but think they can find paradise and freedom in a less developed country. And by less developed I mean *they think there are less laws to bother them and they can do as they please.* Usually a question of not really understanding what those countries are about either.


Agreed. And being totally ignorant of just how many freedoms and protections they're giving up when they move to countries where they think they can do as they please ..... commit a minor crime that they would take for granted as a freedom back home and in the new country they'll rot in jail and die for it with no recourse to the type of justice they would get back home.


----------



## Paumon

gjensen said:


> If you want to fix a country, you have to *fix the people*. That is not going to happen.
> 
> *It would take a serious set of hardships to turn us around now. *
> 
> As far as this country or that country better than another. Nonsense. Childish argument similar to my daddy is stronger than your daddy. Playground material. I like and dislike things about everywhere.


Climate change will make that happen.


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> Climate change will make that happen.


:rotfl::hysterical:

Yes, as you ride a unicorn on your victory lap..............Joe


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> It's already understood all of that with the several states under one federal government was what the original plan was and you've been trying to do that for a few hundred years already. So how is that original plan working out for you now?


The original plan was voided in 1861.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That plan worked quite well for a long time until a worldwide economic depression hit in the early part of the twentieth century. The man in power opted to toss the original plan and converted our republic into a socialist dictatorship. We have been in a downward spiral ever since with the feds usurping more and more power.... ignoring all of the principles of the founders original plan. I suppose there is a certain satisfaction that our citizens are still allowed the freedom to elect which task masters will keep us under their control.


I must disagree. As I stated in another post the original plan was voided in 1861. When Lincoln used the force of arms to prevent a group of states from exercising their freedom to leave the union all of the states rights were flushed down the toilet. Think of it this way, you agree to join with a group of people and start a business. After a while you don't like the way the business is being ran so you, and a couple of others, decided to leave the group. When you try the leader of the company sends a couple of goons to your house and beats the stuffing out of you, set your car on fire and tell you if you try to leave again some really bad things will happen to you AND your family. What kind of "rights" do you think you have in the company?


----------



## watcher

emdeengee said:


> If looking for personal freedom these are listed as the Most Free Countries in the 2013 State of World Liberty Index by VMI - Virginia Military Institute.
> 
> New Zealand
> Switzerland
> Hong Kong
> Australia
> Finland
> Canada
> Liechtenstein
> Denmark
> Ireland
> Luxembourg


Based on WHAT!?!?!


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> Based on WHAT!?!?!


Do I need to post the link with the explanations for you for a third time?


----------



## Paumon

joebill said:


> :rotfl::hysterical:
> 
> Yes, as you ride a unicorn on your victory lap..............Joe


Here is today's good news for you:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Mar/06/here-comes-el-nino-good-news-for-us-weather-woes/


----------



## joebill

Everyone has a different version of what constitutes freedom, and if we all rated different locales according to our own standards, few of us would agree about much of anything.

For instance, I have no idea how difficult it is for homosexuals to adopt in this country, and do not consider it indicitive of anything at all, one way or another, but it seems to be important to the folks who wrote the article you linked to.

On the other hand, most of the places your article considers most free have a populace that is disarmed and at the mercy of it's government, with zero options except praying that it treats them nicely. This, to me, is serfdom, not liberty, and I know for sure that a lot of the citizens of those countries, including yours, feel very much the same way, because they are down here in the desert every winter buying all the guns they can get to smuggle north.

The article also speaks of "inclusion' or some such feel-good word, and they do not specify as to what folks are being excluded from. Big mystery, but whatever it is, I don't really know anybody that misses it.

You might want to take a bit and define for us ignorant folks exactly what you consider freedom to be. My only experience with Canadian freedom was when the jerk at the border told us the box of Tide detergent in the car had to be thrown out if we were to enter the country, because it was poison to the environment that would never go away.

Our tide and us headed back south for all time, and I'm convinced i did not miss a thing....Joe


----------



## joebill

Paumon said:


> Here is today's good news for you:
> 
> http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Mar/06/here-comes-el-nino-good-news-for-us-weather-woes/


OK, I can see that you are so full of Koolaid from the left that you have lost touch with reality and are willing to believe anything that comes down the pike from that direction. You can find refferences to El Nino and La Nina so far back in history that it predates steam ships or steam engines, and has nothing to do with man, whatsoever.

I have no idea how much of this tripe you actually buy into or how much you are merely agitating for a reaction, and it really does not matter. Man made global warming is the biggest hoax in the history of the species, and most folks already know it, but feel free to let the concept control your life and ruin your future.

I have better things to do than try and educate you about reality. It dawns on me suddenly that this is the only place where I write anything and do not get paid for it.

Spat with somebody else. i have another book to write and sell.

God bless the rest of you......It's been a pleasure......Joe


----------



## Fennick

Wow! :shocked: That's the first time I've seen someone go off the edge and sing a swan song because of GOOD news. I'd hate to see what kind of reaction bad news would bring.

This topic has definitely been enlightening about the personalities and character of the posters.


----------



## wannabechef

emdeengee said:


> This stupid law would not just apply to Christians. Devout Muslims and Jews could refuse to do business with women since their religion prohibits women who are not members of your family from addressing them or being in their company. And what next? A Christian fireman refusing to put out a fire at the home of a gay person or a Jewish paramedic refusing to treat a woman victim? Thin end of the wedge.


Public servants work for the public, get paid by the public so your fireman scenario falls flat,

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk


----------



## beowoulf90

emdeengee said:


> If looking for personal freedom these are listed as the Most Free Countries in the 2013 State of World Liberty Index by VMI - Virginia Military Institute.
> 
> New Zealand
> Switzerland
> Hong Kong
> Australia
> Finland
> Canada
> Liechtenstein
> Denmark
> Ireland
> Luxembourg



Well that is a joke.. Almost everyone of them doesn't allow their citizens to own firearms or are very limited in what they can own. So their idea of Freedom is lacking. 

It seems that their brand of Freedom is what most of us call Socialism..So from where I stand, that isn't Freedom..Their Freedom is based in the collective, not the individual as ours is suppose to be, but has been perverted.


----------



## beowoulf90

Paumon said:


> Climate change will make that happen.


So did the global warming folks of 1908 & 1921 win?

They said we would be destroyed by the 1950's

If you do some research the same "cow farts" and the same issues are being used today to claim man made Global warming. Oh it is also the same group of people.. Those who want socialism and communism (in plain words, those who hate freedom aka progressives)..

But I guess history repeats itself for those who don't learn their history..


----------



## beowoulf90

watcher said:


> The original plan was voided in 1861.


Yea, it seems that people forget or were never taught their history..

They forget that Lincoln (their hero) had arrest warrants on the Supreme Court Justices, because they voted against him in his pursuit for war.

They forget that Lincoln didn't want to keep the slave here, he wanted to deport every last one of them.

They forget that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in Union States or Union held territory.

They forget that this is the start of Centralized Federal Power. Before this States controlled their own destinies, not the Federal Government.

But since it seems that some haven't learned from their history, we are about to repeat it..


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Do I need to post the link with the explanations for you for a third time?


There was no link in the original post. And I still don't buy it, its like using a poll/study to rank the best college football team. What YOU think is the most important (passing yards, average points per game, total yards, number of forced turnovers, etc.) and used to make your list may not be what I think is is important. Therefore if I made a list it would be different from yours.

For example for me the basic standard for freedom is the amount of, or lack of, government interference in the individual's life. In that way people in some third world nations have a lot more freedom than any one in a nation on your list.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I must disagree. As I stated in another post the original plan was voided in 1861. When Lincoln used the force of arms to prevent a group of states from exercising their freedom to leave the union all of the states rights were flushed down the toilet. Think of it this way, you agree to join with a group of people and start a business. After a while you don't like the way the business is being ran so you, and a couple of others, decided to leave the group. When you try the leader of the company sends a couple of goons to your house and beats the stuffing out of you, set your car on fire and tell you if you try to leave again some really bad things will happen to you AND your family. What kind of "rights" do you think you have in the company?


Oh I agree with you that Lincoln set the stage for the destruction of the original plan... and his total disregard for the Constitution was indeed a major factor in our demise... but even after his reign of terror the nation still managed to hang on to many of the basic premises of the founding fathers and we emerged as a prosperous nation of states for another few decades. What totally changed our government was when FDR decided to turn us into a socialist nanny state. Up until then the people were still perfectly willing to take care of their own business, become prosperous and accept responsibility for themselves. Once that "will to live" was destroyed in the minds of the people... the nation has gone downhill.


----------



## notwyse

Wow. Hong Kong is China...communist. Leichenstein is a monarchy I believe....whose leader reserves the right to absolve the rest of the government if he so chooses. Ditto Luxembourg. Some freedom.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh I agree with you that Lincoln set the stage for the destruction of the original plan... and his total disregard for the Constitution was indeed a major factor in our demise... but even after his reign of terror the nation still managed to hang on to many of the basic premises of the founding fathers and we emerged as a prosperous nation of states for another few decades. What totally changed our government was when FDR decided to turn us into a socialist nanny state. Up until then the people were still perfectly willing to take care of their own business, become prosperous and accept responsibility for themselves. Once that "will to live" was destroyed in the minds of the people... the nation has gone downhill.


Again its just semantics but w/o Lincoln's destruction of the plan FDR would not have been able to push his socialism down the throats of the states.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Again its just semantics but w/o Lincoln's destruction of the plan FDR would not have been able to push his socialism down the throats of the states.


This is quite true... or at least if would have been more difficult.


----------



## notwyse

I do not wish to offend. But the socialist movement was alive and we'll in this country for many years. It had strong ties to the labor movement. We enjoy early education...social security. 40 hr work weeks. Child labor laws. all related to social ideas. The idea that while we should be equal under the law we are not actually equal. It is hard to argue that a person with a debilitating disease should not have some help. As an advanced society we shoulder the burden and plug on. I for one don't mind that. My circumstances are radically improved from earlier times in my life...and now I pay it back.


----------



## Evons hubby

notwyse said:


> I do not wish to offend. But the socialist movement was alive and we'll in this country for many years. It had strong ties to the labor movement. We enjoy early education...social security. 40 hr work weeks. Child labor laws. all related to social ideas. The idea that while we should be equal under the law we are not actually equal. It is hard to argue that a person with a debilitating disease should not have some help. As an advanced society we shoulder the burden and plug on. I for one don't mind that. My circumstances are radically improved from earlier times in my life...and now I pay it back.


I think you are missing the point here. While there is nothing wrong with caring and helping those in need... these things should fall to our States to deal with. The federal government was never designed for such activities... the constitution made it quite clear that each state should govern the citizens in their state. The federal government was designed as a government for the states themselves... not the people. The founders set forth the duties of the federal government in the constitution... and restricted it to ONLY those duties.


----------



## notwyse

Maybe. But half this discussion has been about a law a STATE has chose NOT to have.


----------



## Paumon

notwyse said:


> Wow. Hong Kong is China...communist. Leichenstein is a monarchy I believe....whose leader reserves the right to absolve the rest of the government if he so chooses. Ditto Luxembourg. Some freedom.


They are all constitutional countries whose constitutions are upheld, their constitutions and charters of freedoms and rights have the same authority of law in their countries as the American constitution does in America. If a country is a constitutional monarchy the head of state CANNOT absolve the rest of the government as they choose.


----------



## where I want to

notwyse said:


> . It is hard to argue that a person with a debilitating disease should not have some help. As an advanced society we shoulder the burden and plug on. I for one don't mind that..


That is the argument that is always trotted out- helping a "deserving person." But always, always deafening silence about money going to people not any more likely to be need it than I am. Or more likely some tangent about mean people wanting to deny the poor of any joy.
It is next to impossible to get figures of the number of people in the US getting non-contributory benefits such as SNAP, WIC, SSI, TANF, housing assistance, utility assistance, tax credits in excess of liability, etc because so many entities getting money funneled through and from the States, grants, etc.
If you search for these things you get sent to endless site to file for benefits but little that gives you figures that are usable. 
So I judge by my experience - mostly having to wait behind someone using food stamps in the grocery check out or the people using medicaid at the hospital check in. And more than half the time there is someone just in front me is doing so.
I simply can't believe that many people can't take care of themselves. Nor that there are that many cases of "you-can't-judge" people who can pull out a wad of money to pay for the things that food stamps doesn't cover then get into the driver's seat of a vehicle worth more than all the vehicles I've ever owned yet can't pay for their own food.
The apologists have made it OK to take for convenience in too many cases. Always using an example of real need to throw the doors wide open for all.
No one should get food stamps while they have resources to use to take care of themselves yet that is actually what the law says. Same with health insurance subsidies. It's gone too far.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> *If a country is a constitutional monarchy the head of state CANNOT absolve the rest of the government as they choose.*


Funny, that seems to be what BO is doing by circumventing congress on numerous things.


----------



## emdeengee

wannabechef said:


> Public servants work for the public, get paid by the public so your fireman scenario falls flat,
> 
> Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk


Okay strike firemen but keep paramedics and ambulance drivers and private security police and add nurses and doctors because once again - thin edge of the wedge. May not happen right away but it would have.


----------



## notwyse

Look up those countries. And yes...they can absolve their legislature. Or change their constitution. I had to read it...interesting.


----------



## Paumon

beowoulf90 said:


> ....... Their Freedom is based in the collective, not the individual as ours is suppose to be, but has been perverted.


Bingo! Now you're catching on. The same rights and freedoms for everyone equally, not rights and freedoms only for select individuals.

I never knew that freedoms in America were only supposed to be for certain individuals and not for everyone. This is news to me. Is that stated somewhere in the American constitution? Who are the priviliged individuals and who are the individuals that are excluded?


----------



## Paumon

notwyse said:


> Look up those countries. And yes...they can absolve their legislature. Or change their constitution. I had to read it...interesting.


I had looked them up. I didn't see whatever it was you say you were reading so could you please provide the links to that information? Thanks.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Bingo! Now you're catching on. The same rights and freedoms for everyone equally, not rights and freedoms only for select individuals.
> 
> I never knew that freedoms in America were only supposed to be for certain individuals and not for everyone. This is news to me. Is that stated somewhere in the American constitution? Who are the priviliged individuals and who are the individuals that are excluded?


Everyone is supposed to be equal, but our legislature likes to divide our country and demonize those in the opposing party. For some reason, folks would rather have gimme's than the Constitution, and they vote!!


----------



## Paumon

Okay, so then are you saying that beowoulf90's statement that freedoms are supposed to be based in individuals and not in the collective is an incorrect statement?


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is what He told one sinner for sure and certain... but He also said we are to love one another.... and especially our enemies. Discriminating against someone is not loving them. There is another player in Gods game.. and he thrives on hatred and discord. I would far rather play it Christ's way and love the sinner than feed Satan with hatred.


If you cannot discriminate, you cannot tell wrong from right. I believe God asks us to discriminate on a continual basis. One can love and still decide not to do wrong, or to support those that do.

It's only been in the last few decades, that love has emerged as the overarching theme of many in Christianity. While I appreciate the fact that God is Love, I prefer not to place God in such a small box. God is Love. He is also Justice and even Vengeance. Along with many more facets of the same Being, each as important as the last.

My God is Love, but He can also wield a terrible, swift sword.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Okay, so then are you saying that beowoulf90's statement that freedoms are supposed to be based in individuals and not in the collective is an incorrect statement?



Not sure who this is directed at but:

He is correct. The Constitution is about individual rights and limits what our government is able to do. The government has abused their power since Lincoln and have paid the voters to vote for taking from the largesse in exchange for their freedoms. Some of us refuse to surrender those rights.


----------



## notwyse

Wikipedia. Scroll to politics. Luxembourg..grand duke...and yes he can dissolve the legislature. Leichenstein... Prince...monarchy....and yes he can dissolve his parliament. Hong Kong....reverted back to China which is communist. China rather enjoying the current capitalism.... But still the boss.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> If you cannot discriminate, you cannot tell wrong from right. I believe God asks us to discriminate on a continual basis. One can love and still decide not to do wrong, or to support those that do.


Let's talk about wrong and right for a minute.... is it wrong to believe differently than your neighbor? Is it wrong to love? Is it wrong to take someone else's property? Is it wrong to spend time with someone you love? Is it wrong to kill animals for food? Is it wrong to kill people for any reason? Is it wrong to impose my beliefs upon my neighbor?


----------



## sunny225

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let's talk about wrong and right for a minute.... is it wrong to believe differently than your neighbor? Is it wrong to love? Is it wrong to take someone else's property? Is it wrong to spend time with someone you love? Is it wrong to kill animals for food? Is it wrong to kill people for any reason? Is it wrong to impose my beliefs upon my neighbor?


 
1. no 2. no 3. yes 4. no 5. no 6. I'm not sure I understand this one, the wording is confusing to me. Sometimes people need killing so it wouldn't be 'wrong' to kill those. 
7. yes, but I'm not sure how I can 'impose' my beliefs on my neighbor anyway.


----------



## Paumon

joebill said:


> because they are down here in the desert every winter buying all the guns they can get to smuggle north.... <snip> .....
> My only experience with Canadian freedom was when the jerk at the border told us the box of Tide detergent in the car had to be thrown out if we were to enter the country, because it was poison to the environment that would never go away.
> 
> Our tide and us headed back south for all time, and I'm convinced i did not miss a thing....Joe


That is standard procedure on BOTH sides of the border and if you had been a foreign visitor arriving into America with a box of detergent you would not have gotten off so lightly and been allowed to leave with it, you would have been taken aside to be interrogated and searched. Tide is sold in both countries but if somebody is an arriving foreign visitor, (not somebody with receipts returning home with sealed packaged goods from a day's shopping trip across the border), the visitor cannot bring boxes of detergent or bars of soap across the border into either Canada or America. The reason is because so many visitors to both countries try to smuggle firearms, ammunition, drugs and other contraband inside detergents thinking that the smell of detergent will confuse sniffer dogs and that border guards won't bother to search it. It's an old trick that all border guards know about.

If a visitor is arriving into Canada he is given *two options* to avoid being searched - he can choose to discard the box and its contents at the border disposal site before being allowed to cross into Canada or he can choose to turn around and go back home with it. If the visitor insists on taking the box of detergent into Canada with him the border authorities will pull him aside and search the entire vehicle and the contents of the detergent box then they will confiscate the detergent and dispose of it at their discretion (which means it might be tested for drugs). If they find any undisclosed smuggled contraband anywhere in the vehicle the visitor will be arrested and charged. If they find no contraband the visitor is allowed into Canada, but without his box of detergent.

If a visitor is arriving into America with a box of detergent or any other suspect item he is given *no options* to avoid being searched. He and the vehicle will be taken aside and he will be interrogated while the entire vehicle is searched, including the box of detergent and then the detergent will be confiscated and disposed of in the same manner as noted above (might be tested). If undisclosed contraband is found the visitor will be arrested and charged and the vehicle and its other contents will be impounded. If no contraband is found the visitor might or might not be allowed to enter to visit America. That is up to the sole discretion of the American border authority depending on the overall attitude and cooperation of the visitor during his interrogation and whether or not the border authority is having a good day or a bad day.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> That is standard procedure on BOTH sides of the border and if you had been a foreign visitor arriving into America with a box of detergent you would not have gotten off so lightly and been allowed to leave with it, you would have been taken aside to be interrogated and searched. Tide is sold in both countries but if somebody is an arriving foreign visitor, (not somebody with receipts returning home with sealed packaged goods from a day's shopping trip across the border), the visitor cannot bring boxes of detergent or bars of soap across the border into either Canada or America. The reason is because so many visitors to both countries try to smuggle firearms, ammunition, drugs and other contraband inside detergents thinking that the smell of detergent will confuse sniffer dogs and that border guards won't bother to search it. It's an old trick that all border guards know about.
> 
> If a visitor is arriving into Canada he is given *two options* to avoid being searched - he can choose to discard the box and its contents at the border disposal site before being allowed to cross into Canada or he can choose to turn around and go back home with it. If the visitor insists on taking the box of detergent into Canada with him the border authorities will pull him aside and search the entire vehicle and the contents of the detergent box then they will confiscate the detergent and dispose of it at their discretion (which means it might be tested for drugs). If they find any undisclosed smuggled contraband anywhere in the vehicle the visitor will be arrested and charged. If they find no contraband the visitor is allowed into Canada, but without his box of detergent.
> 
> If a visitor is arriving into America with a box of detergent or any other suspect item he is given *no options* to avoid being searched. He and the vehicle will be taken aside and he will be interrogated while the entire vehicle is searched, including the box of detergent and then the detergent will be confiscated and disposed of in the same manner as noted above (might be tested). If undisclosed contraband is found the visitor will be arrested and charged and the vehicle and its other contents will be impounded. If no contraband is found the visitor might or might not be allowed to enter to visit America. That is up to the sole discretion of the American border authority depending on the overall attitude and cooperation of the visitor during his interrogation and whether or not the border authority is having a good day or a bad day.


Or, you can just avoid border checkpoints!


----------



## where I want to

Every time there is a problem mentioned having to do with Canada, a few people (and you know who you are) respond with an explanation as to why the problem is really your problem and not Canada's. Then will promptly dump on the US, stating how it your problem you are not as good as Canada.
Seems that there is a great difference in what is polite depending on whether those people are facing north or south.
Me, I like Canada and most Canadians I've met, even if I shake my head at their doings. They are pretty good neighbors on the whole. And I want them to stay that way.


----------



## emdeengee

Me, I like Americans and most Americans I've met, even if I shake my head at their doings. They are pretty good neighbors on the whole. And I want them to stay that way.


----------



## Paumon

where I want to said:


> Every time there is a problem mentioned having to do with Canada, a few people (and you know who you are) respond with an explanation as to why the problem is really your problem and not Canada's. Then will promptly dump on the US, stating how it your problem you are not as good as Canada.
> Seems that there is a great difference in what is polite depending on whether those people are facing north or south.
> Me, I like Canada and most Canadians I've met, even if I shake my head at their doings. They are pretty good neighbors on the whole. And I want them to stay that way.


Why are other people being the first ones mentioning their problems with Canada if they don't want Canadians to respond and let them know what the explanation is in defense? Are the complainers doing it just to be mean spirited and point critical fingers at their northern neighbour so they can feel better about themselves? 

If they bring up how they have a problem with Canada then that IS their problem, it is not Canada's problem, otherwise if it wasn't a problem for other people they would not have been criticizing Canada in the first place. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones first and not expect the stones to ricochet back at them in defense or shatter the glass.

You are right - there is a great difference in what is insulting or polite depending on whether the complainers are facing north or south.

Me, I like America and most Americans I've met and half of my family are Americans, I even married one ....... even if _I_ shake _my_ head at _their_ doings. .... see, it works both ways. They are pretty good neighbors on the whole. And I want them to stay that way without me having to be on the defensive.

I'm reminded of this week's topic titled "Oh Canada" which was started by you in the politics forum. A criticism of something that you disagreed with but didn't even understand or have any knowledge of what it was you were disagreeing with. So don't be surprised when Canadians attempt to clarify situations to help you understand things you disagree with but don't have knowledge of about Canada.


----------



## notwyse

Oh...I am still here.


----------



## beowoulf90

Paumon said:


> Bingo! Now you're catching on. The same rights and freedoms for everyone equally, not rights and freedoms only for select individuals.
> 
> I never knew that freedoms in America were only supposed to be for certain individuals and not for everyone. This is news to me. Is that stated somewhere in the American constitution? Who are the priviliged individuals and who are the individuals that are excluded?


So you are saying that the Baker has the Right to refuse service to anyone they choose.. From where I stand that is correct..

Why is it a gay hair dresser allowed to refuse to do a politicians hair because of that politicians political stance, yet a baker can't do the same thing on a religious stance?

Funny how it seems that some seem to have more Rights than others.. A gay hair dresser can refuse to cut someone's hair, but a Christian Baker can't refuse to make a cake for gays..

So gays are above the rest of us and have more Rights..

Sorry NO!


----------



## mmoetc

beowoulf90 said:


> So you are saying that the Baker has the Right to refuse service to anyone they choose.. From where I stand that is correct..
> 
> Why is it a gay hair dresser allowed to refuse to do a politicians hair because of that politicians political stance, yet a baker can't do the same thing on a religious stance?
> 
> Funny how it seems that some seem to have more Rights than others.. A gay hair dresser can refuse to cut someone's hair, but a Christian Baker can't refuse to make a cake for gays..
> 
> So gays are above the rest of us and have more Rights..
> 
> Sorry NO!


Once again the answer is simple. The gay hair dresser shouldn't be allowed to refuse to cut the politician's hair. As far as I know the politician hasn't attempted to get service so the point is moot. On the other hand, if you believe the baker is in the right you should also be willing to stand up for the hair dresser. Injustice is injustice no matter who it is perpetrated on on or by, right.


----------



## watcher

notwyse said:


> I do not wish to offend. But the socialist movement was alive and we'll in this country for many years. It had strong ties to the labor movement. We enjoy early education...social security. 40 hr work weeks. Child labor laws. all related to social ideas.


True but we have slid from socialism into fascism. 




notwyse said:


> The idea that while we should be equal under the law we are not actually equal.


We are not all equal. After all can you hit a 90 mph fast ball? Can you design and/or build a computer? But we should all be treated equally under the law. Someone who can hit a 90 mph fast ball should expect to be treated the same as someone who can not.




notwyse said:


> It is hard to argue that a person with a debilitating disease should not have some help.


True but do you think you should have the power to stick a gun in your next door neighbor's face and demand they give you money to pay to treat the neighbor who lives across the street?




notwyse said:


> As an advanced society we shoulder the burden and plug on. I for one don't mind that. My circumstances are radically improved from earlier times in my life...and now I pay it back.


That's your freedom. But someone else doesn't want to do you think you have the right to force him to "pay it back"?


----------



## mmoetc

I cannot hit a ninety mile an hour fastball. But I should never have been denied the opportunity to attempt that task because I was born the wrong color or sexual orientation. The constitution does not guarantee equality in outcome, only equality in opportunity.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> I cannot hit a ninety mile an hour fastball. But I should never have been denied the opportunity to attempt that task because I was born the wrong color or sexual orientation. The constitution does not guarantee equality in outcome, only equality in opportunity.


But it is not just the hitter who is involved. Do you have the right to make a pitcher throw to you at your discretion? Say he has a religious objection to working on Sunday but many games are placed on on Sunday. Do you have the right to make him play on Sunday because you want to hit on Sunday? Do you have the right to tell him he can't play ball ever because he won't play on Sunday or just let him have his Sunday but let him find that no one will hire him because he won't play on Sunday?


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> But it is not just the hitter who is involved. Do you have the right to make a pitcher throw to you at your discretion? Say he has a religious objection to working on Sunday but many games are placed on on Sunday. Do you have the right to make him play on Sunday because you want to hit on Sunday? Do you have the right to tell him he can't play ball ever because he won't play on Sunday or just let him have his Sunday but let him find that no one will hire him because he won't play on Sunday?


Where is your line in the sand? No laws what so ever that would impinge on personal freedoms?


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> But it is not just the hitter who is involved. Do you have the right to make a pitcher throw to you at your discretion? Say he has a religious objection to working on Sunday but many games are placed on on Sunday. Do you have the right to make him play on Sunday because you want to hit on Sunday? Do you have the right to tell him he can't play ball ever because he won't play on Sunday or just let him have his Sunday but let him find that no one will hire him because he won't play on Sunday?


If I have an employment contract with that pitcher it can spell out all of those things. What I cannot do is grant a Christian pitcher the privilege of not pitching on his Sabbath based on his religous principles but deny a Jewish pitcher the privilege to not pitch on his sabbath based on his religous principles. I can also deny that privilege to all and require them all to pitch where and when I decree. Whether they choose to accept these terms is up to them but the terms must be equally offered to all.


----------



## homstdr74

The left demands that we debate how &#8220;equal&#8221; abnormalities are, while in the meantime China has built up their military and is rattling sharpened chopsticks toward our &#8220;ally&#8221; Japan; and Putin has not only eaten Obama&#8217;s lunch but is threatening to pants the guy in the schoolyard.

These guys are playing 20th century hardball; they still believe that their national boundaries and longtime associations/alliances with other nations count, while the lefties here seek to further defund our military in their attempt to undermine American exceptionalism.

This talk about weird stuff is obviously just a distraction from real problems. If you don&#8217;t think that is the case, tell us what in the H is so bleeping important about those twerps who can&#8217;t even bake their own cake, and worse, who their supporters have made to appear so helpless they wouldn&#8217;t even know how?


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> The left demands that we debate how âequalâ abnormalities are, while in the meantime China has built up their military and is rattling sharpened chopsticks toward our âallyâ Japan; and Putin has not only eaten Obamaâs lunch but is threatening to pants the guy in the schoolyard.
> 
> These guys are playing 20th century hardball; they still believe that their national boundaries and longtime associations/alliances with other nations count, while the lefties here seek to further defund our military in their attempt to undermine American exceptionalism.
> 
> This talk about weird stuff is obviously just a distraction from real problems. If you donât think that is the case, tell us what in the H is so bleeping important about those twerps who canât even bake their own cake, and worse, who their supporters have made to appear so helpless they wouldnât even know how?


Most of us are capable of being concerned with more than one thing at a time. The fight against discrimination is always important especially if you have lived with it all your life.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I cannot hit a ninety mile an hour fastball. But I should never have been denied the opportunity to attempt that task because I was born the wrong color or sexual orientation.


Baseball isn't a good example due to the incestuous relationship it has with the government but lets go with it. Again I must ask why you think you have the _right_ to force the owner of the baseball team to give you the opportunity to attempt the task. Doesn't the owner of the team have the freedom to do with his property as he wishes? If he doesn't want any X on his team and even refuses to play any team which has Xs on their team why should his freedom to do that be taken away because you think its 'wrong'? 




mmoetc said:


> The constitution does not guarantee equality in outcome, only equality in opportunity.


Again I must point out that the constitution only applies to the government.


----------



## farmrbrown

Forrest and trees, forrest and trees........


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Most of us are capable of being concerned with more than one thing at a time. The fight against discrimination is always important especially if you have lived with it all your life.


I've fought it for decades but I don't want to use a gun, held in my hand or the hand of a government official, to take the freedom of a private citizen to be a discriminting bigot if he wishes. I can tell you from personal, family, experience you can not make a bigot stop being a bigot by forcing him to serve, hire, work for, work with and/or sell to the people they hate.

If you want to open a business and only serve whites, you should have that freedom. If you open a business and only serve blacks, that's fine. If you want to open a business and refuse serve one legged, left handed, blond Spanish nationals, go right ahead.

At the same time if I don't want to buy from someone who refuses to sale to to said Spaniards I have the freedom to do that as well.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I've fought it for decades but I don't want to use a gun, held in my hand or the hand of a government official, to take the freedom of a private citizen to be a discriminting bigot if he wishes. I can tell you from personal, family, experience you can not make a bigot stop being a bigot by forcing him to serve, hire, work for, work with and/or sell to the people they hate.
> 
> If you want to open a business and only serve whites, you should have that freedom. If you open a business and only serve blacks, that's fine. If you want to open a business and refuse serve one legged, left handed, blond Spanish nationals, go right ahead.
> 
> At the same time if I don't want to buy from someone who refuses to sale to to said Spaniards I have the freedom to do that as well.


I disagree. Many, many people disagree. The Supreme court backs up that the constitution does not allow it.


----------



## beowoulf90

mmoetc said:


> Once again the answer is simple. The gay hair dresser shouldn't be allowed to refuse to cut the politician's hair. As far as I know the politician hasn't attempted to get service so the point is moot. On the other hand, if you believe the baker is in the right you should also be willing to stand up for the hair dresser. Injustice is injustice no matter who it is perpetrated on on or by, right.


Sorry it did happen! A gay hair dresser did refuse to cut the hair of a Republican politician. Simply because of the politician's political stance on gay marriage.. 

IIRC it was Bush or Bush SR. But it did happen. Of course it wasn't made into a big deal, because the said politician said (paraphrasing), ok, thank you for your time and then got someone else to do it.. They didn't whine about it..

Oh and yes I do stand up for the gay hair dresser.. They have a Right to refuse service to whom ever.. But of course it's always a double standard for some..

If the gay hair dresser doesn't have to do business with those who oppose gay marriage then the baker doens't have to do business with those who approve of gay marriage..

It's that simple.. They have the Right not to do business with whom they choose..


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> I disagree. Many, many people disagree. The Supreme court backs up that the constitution does not allow it.


Again the Supreme Court isn't the final say.. 

Take this case for example.. Remember you think the Supreme Court is the final say..

Dred Scott v. Sandford

So you condone slavery? Or would you had it not been brought again to the Court?

We the people are the final say, not the Court..

Just because the Supreme Court has been bought, in an era doesn't mean it won't change it's mind in another era..

Lincoln and FDR both threatened the Court with arrest and Lincoln even had those warrants served..


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> Most of us are capable of being concerned with more than one thing at a time. The fight against discrimination is always important especially if you have lived with it all your life.


Yes, indeed I am concerned with more than one thing at a time, and I oppose *any* warring discrimination against my Nation, the populace of which is made up of umpteen different minorities few of which attempt to discriminate against other people for their own selfish interests.

BTW: It probably isn't wise of you to assume that those who oppose your agenda have never been discriminated against, because many have and for the sake of keeping the peace have never been so petty as to seek revenge through reverse discrimination.


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> Yes, indeed I am concerned with more than one thing at a time, and I oppose *any* warring discrimination against my Nation, the populace of which is made up of umpteen different minorities few of which attempt to discriminate against other people for their own selfish interests.
> 
> BTW: It probably isn't wise of you to assume that those who oppose your agenda have never been discriminated against, because many have and for the sake of keeping the peace have never been so petty as to seek revenge through reverse discrimination.


I did not assume. I only spoke about my experience.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> If I have an employment contract with that pitcher it can spell out all of those things. What I cannot do is grant a Christian pitcher the privilege of not pitching on his Sabbath based on his religous principles but deny a Jewish pitcher the privilege to not pitch on his sabbath based on his religous principles. I can also deny that privilege to all and require them all to pitch where and when I decree. Whether they choose to accept these terms is up to them but the terms must be equally offered to all.


Why yes indeed- and that is just the point so many have been trying to make.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> I did not assume. I only spoke about my experience.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EFPJL1uQbs[/ame]


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I disagree. Many, many people disagree. The Supreme court backs up that the constitution does not allow it.


The USSC also ruled it is constitutional for the government to have separate facilities for different races. 

It has ruled that its constitutional for the government to force you to buy a product.

It has ruled that the government can take your real personal property and give it to another individual.

To think that the USSC is some religious order which lives above the human political plane and makes all their rulings based only on the constitution w/o any political and/or popular at the time influence is naive.


----------



## mmoetc

beowoulf90 said:


> Sorry it did happen! A gay hair dresser did refuse to cut the hair of a Republican politician. Simply because of the politician's political stance on gay marriage..
> 
> IIRC it was Bush or Bush SR. But it did happen. Of course it wasn't made into a big deal, because the said politician said (paraphrasing), ok, thank you for your time and then got someone else to do it.. They didn't whine about it..
> 
> Oh and yes I do stand up for the gay hair dresser.. They have a Right to refuse service to whom ever.. But of course it's always a double standard for some..
> 
> If the gay hair dresser doesn't have to do business with those who oppose gay marriage then the baker doens't have to do business with those who approve of gay marriage..
> 
> It's that simple.. They have the Right not to do business with whom they choose..


I did your research for you and it was the Governor of New Mexico. I would have no issue if the governor wished to sue and would hope that she would win her case.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> The USSC also ruled it is constitutional for the government to have separate facilities for different races.
> 
> It has ruled that its constitutional for the government to force you to buy a product.
> 
> It has ruled that the government can take your real personal property and give it to another individual.
> 
> To think that the USSC is some religious order which lives above the human political plane and makes all their rulings based only on the constitution w/o any political and/or popular at the time influence is naive.


And to believe that at any given point in time the SC isn't the final arbiter as to what is constitutional is equally naive.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Baseball isn't a good example due to the incestuous relationship it has with the government but lets go with it. Again I must ask why you think you have the _right_ to force the owner of the baseball team to give you the opportunity to attempt the task. Doesn't the owner of the team have the freedom to do with his property as he wishes? If he doesn't want any X on his team and even refuses to play any team which has Xs on their team why should his freedom to do that be taken away because you think its 'wrong'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I must point out that the constitution only applies to the government.


I didn't bring baseball to the table. I don't have a right to force anyone to allow me to try out for their team. However, if that team is holding open tryouts I have as much right as anyone to participate. I can find no reading of the Constitution that denies government the ability to write laws requiring equal access. I know you differ and until you are appointed or elected to a position to exert your opinion it has the same power as mine.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> I didn't bring baseball to the table. I don't have a right to force anyone to allow me to try out for their team. However, if that team is holding open tryouts I have as much right as anyone to participate. I can find no reading of the Constitution that denies government the ability to write laws requiring equal access. I know you differ and until you are appointed or elected to a position to exert your opinion it has the same power as mine.


The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from impeding the free exercise of religion while civil rights is a matter of law, not the Constitution.


----------



## Vash

mmoetc said:


> And to believe that at any given point in time the SC isn't the final arbiter as to what is constitutional is equally naive.


When the system of checks and balances is OUT of balance (like it is now) all bets are off.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from impeding the free exercise of religion while civil rights is a matter of law, not the Constitution.


Does it really? Are you allowed to chop someones arms off for stealing? Can you stone someone to death if your religion allows this?


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> The first Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from impeding the free exercise of religion while civil rights is a matter of law, not the Constitution.


And when you can show me how not allowing someone to attend an open baseball tryout violates your religous beliefs I'll be a bit closer to buying your arguement.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Does it really? Are you allowed to chop someones arms off for stealing? Can you stone someone to death if your religion allows this?


The topic involves service refusal and you go to _maiming and killing_?

I'm pretty certain THAT is covered under the 5th amendment.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> The topic involves service refusal and you go to _maiming and killing_?
> 
> I'm pretty certain THAT is covered under the 5th amendment.


I was responding to a single post not and entire thread so yes I went there.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> I was responding to a single post not and entire thread so yes I went there.


The post you responded to had NOTHING to do with maiming or killing.

and again, 5th amendment answers your question on that tangent.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> The post you responded to had NOTHING to do with maiming or killing.
> 
> and again, 5th amendment answers your question on that tangent.


And that person was responding to a comment about baseball. I am free to post what I want when I want.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> And that person was responding to a comment about baseball. I am feel to post what I want when I want.


Just as I am free to point out the flaws in your argument.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And to believe that at any given point in time the SC isn't the final arbiter as to what is constitutional is equally naive.


Seeing as how the all mighty court has changed its mind from time to time and the fact that congress can side step it and the people can change means that the USSC *isn't* the final arbiter.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I didn't bring baseball to the table. I don't have a right to force anyone to allow me to try out for their team. However, if that team is holding open tryouts I have as much right as anyone to participate. I can find no reading of the Constitution that denies government the ability to write laws requiring equal access. I know you differ and until you are appointed or elected to a position to exert your opinion it has the same power as mine.


I see one of the problems now. The USC specifically denies the government very few thing. But if you read it, it says unless a power is given to the government it does not have that power. Therefore unless you can point out where the USC grants the federal government the power to force you to provide your goods to anyone who wants them the federal government DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> And when you can show me how not allowing someone to attend an open baseball tryout violates your religous beliefs I'll be a bit closer to buying your arguement.


Remember cakes?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Seeing as how the all mighty court has changed its mind from time to time and the fact that congress can side step it and the people can change means that the USSC *isn't* the final arbiter.


Which is why I explicitly stated at "any given point in time."


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I see one of the problems now. The USC specifically denies the government very few thing. But if you read it, it says unless a power is given to the government it does not have that power. Therefore unless you can point out where the USC grants the federal government the power to force you to provide your goods to anyone who wants them the federal government DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER.


We can go back to the 14th amendment and equal protection.


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> Remember cakes?


My same answer applies. If you can show me the passage in your holy book that says you can't sell a cake to a homosexual you can move me closer. But any clause you might show me likely applies to a variety of disapproved of actions such as fornication outside of marriage, adultery and sodomy. Deny all non-compliers or deny none.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> We can go back to the 14th amendment and equal protection.


If you read the 14th you will note it says "No State shall make or enforce any law" and "nor shall any State deprive". Now can you tell me how an INDIVIDUAL refusing to sell their PRIVATE goods or service someone or a group of someones is equal to a State making a law or a State depriving someone of something?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> My same answer applies. If you can show me the passage in your holy book that says you can't sell a cake to a homosexual you can move me closer. But any clause you might show me likely applies to a variety of disapproved of actions such as fornication outside of marriage, adultery and sodomy. Deny all non-compliers or deny none.


If someone came in and asked for a cake to celebrate the fact that tonight his wife was out of town and it was the night he was going to screw his secretary I think the same thing would apply. 

But why should it matter? Its his business where do you get the power to tell him how he should run it?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> If you read the 14th you will note it says "No State shall make or enforce any law" and "nor shall any State deprive". Now can you tell me how an INDIVIDUAL refusing to sell their PRIVATE goods or service someone or a group of someones is equal to a State making a law or a State depriving someone of something?


Lets not pull half sentences out of context....

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There now... that should give anyone the meaning behind this clause. I especially like that last part.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lets not pull half sentences out of context....
> 
> "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction *the equal protection of the laws*."
> 
> There now... that should give anyone the meaning behind this clause. *I especially like that last* part.


Then you undoubtedly would like to explain exactly why the "laws" have been and are being changed so that their entire context has been warped to mean something which they were never intended to define, rather than constructing an entirely new category for such alien thought processes.

Can we also expect this with other laws, that the heartless will also change the laws about polygamy, incest, theft, assault, murder and etc. much as they have changed the laws against abortion and homosexuality? 

If you think not, why not? What's so special about those or any other laws that have been on the books for millennia? After all, someone is being denied their freedoms and thus their "rights" by those Christian laws, and they would much rather that they didn't exist.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> My same answer applies. If you can show me the passage in your holy book that says you can't sell a cake to a homosexual you can move me closer. But any clause you might show me likely applies to a variety of disapproved of actions such as fornication outside of marriage, adultery and sodomy. Deny all non-compliers or deny none.


Page 96 chapter 4 verse 8 of the KJB specifies that any man who doth bake the Lord's bounty for his brethern shall only do so for the righteously married.

Now that you made arbitrary, rude and accusatory demands that are just as silly and pointless, you should definitely feel that the above is an appropriate answer.


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> Page 96 chapter 4 verse 8 of the KJB specifies that any man who doth bake the Lord's bounty for his brethern shall only do so for the righteously married.
> 
> Now that you made arbitrary, rude and accusatory demands that are just as silly and pointless, you should definitely feel that the above is an appropriate answer.


Now give me the definition of righteously married and convince me that every wedding cake provided by this bakery was only provided after those conditions were met.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lets not pull half sentences out of context....
> 
> "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> There now... that should give anyone the meaning behind this clause. I especially like that last part.


Funny. . .even in context I don't see a single word in there about a the federal government having the power to force an INDIVIDUAL to sell his goods or services to anyone the government thinks he should. Only that the government must not or shall not etc.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> Now give me the definition of righteously married and convince me that every wedding cake provided by this bakery was only provided after those conditions were met.


With God's blessings! Folks that have the vapors, hissy fits and sue, not so much!! It's also not your decision.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> With God's blessings! Folks that have the vapors, hissy fits and sue, not so much!! It's also not your decision.


So the two same sex weddings I've been to that were conducted under the auspices of the United Church of Christ and the one presided over by a Rabbi in a temple are good with you? Thanks for the support.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> So the two same sex weddings I've been to that were conducted under the auspices of the United Church of Christ and the one presided over by a Rabbi in a temple are good with you? Thanks for the support.


Sleeping in the garage doesn't make you a car and calling yourself a follower of God doesn't make you one. Christ even told us so.

_Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?â Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â_ Matthew 7:22-23 NIV

IOW, there's a lot of people who are here on earth doing things in God's name who are going to get a very nasty surprise when they meet him fact to face.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Sleeping in the garage doesn't make you a car and calling yourself a follower of God doesn't make you one. Christ even told us so.
> 
> _Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?â Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â_ Matthew 7:22-23 NIV
> 
> IOW, there's a lot of people who are here on earth doing things in God's name who are going to get a very nasty surprise when they meet him fact to face.


There very certainly are.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Funny. . .even in context I don't see a single word in there about a the federal government having the power to force an INDIVIDUAL to sell his goods or services to anyone the government thinks he should. Only that the government must not or shall not etc.


You really have to look beyond those individual words and try to understand their meaning. They forbid the states from infringing upon the citizens rights making all of us "equal" under the law. IE if john and Jane have the legal right to purchase your house or your car or your cake.... so do bill and bobby.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> So the two same sex weddings I've been to that were conducted under the auspices of the United Church of Christ and the one presided over by a Rabbi in a temple are good with you? Thanks for the support.


Why would I have a problem with them? Did they do something abhorrent?


----------



## JeffreyD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You really have to look beyond those individual words and try to understand their meaning. They forbid the states from infringing upon the citizens rights making all of us "equal" under the law. IE if john and Jane have the legal right to purchase your house or your car or your cake.... so do bill and bobby.


Sorry, that's not what the 14th amendment says. It means exactly what is written.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> Now give me the definition of righteously married and convince me that every wedding cake provided by this bakery was only provided after those conditions were met.


Nonsense, which was what my post was in response to your arbitrary remarks. A discussion is one thing, a debate another. This is not reaching the standard for either.

Respond with a counter argument, not meaningless demands. I'm done.

A person does not have to pass your personal test of religious belief to have the right to practice.


----------



## Joshie

emdeengee said:


> T And what next? A Christian fireman refusing to put out a fire at the home of a gay person or a Jewish paramedic refusing to treat a woman victim? Thin end of the wedge.


What does this have to do with the OP's question? OP (and the proposed law) is about businesses. Last I checked, emergency services are a whole 'nother ballgame. 

Like it or not, I would not make a wedding cake for a homosexual "wedding." If it meant that the goberment wouldn't allow me to operate a bake shop then, unfortunately, I would have to close my business. 



plowjockey said:


> Christians are now the first to complain about "discrimination", but are happy to take away gays rights, to attempt get married.


Would you please tell me what you mean by that?


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> Nonsense, which was what my post was in response to your arbitrary remarks. A discussion is one thing, a debate another. This is not reaching the standard for either.
> 
> Respond with a counter argument, not meaningless demands. I'm done.
> 
> A person does not have to pass your personal test of religious belief to have the right to practice.


You're correct, no one has to pass any of my religous tests to do business in this country. Nor should I have to pass any of yours or anyone else's. Asking for a definition of a phrase like righteously married is, to me, not a meaningless demand but an attempt to clarify terms so that both sides of a discussion are certain that they are discussing the same thing. As I pointed out, I know people who I would consider righteously married under god's auspices who likely would have had difficulty buying the cake in question. Why is this so if they met the biblical standard?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You really have to look beyond those individual words and try to understand their meaning. They forbid the states from infringing upon the citizens rights making all of us "equal" under the law. IE if john and Jane have the legal right to purchase your house or your car or your cake.... so do bill and bobby.


First off no one has a "right" to buy a cake. As I have stated time and time and time again if something must be provided to you by someone else it is NOT A RIGHT.

Second, using your logic you have no freedom to do with your personal property as you wish. Say you have a dog for sale and someone comes up and says he wants to buy it to feed to his pet tiger. If you refuse to sell it to him because you think feeding dogs to tigers is 'bad'. He runs to the courts and says that he had the "legal right" to buy the dog and your refused to sell it to him ONLY because you discriminated against him because of his personal beliefs were different than yours therefore you have violated his rights. Should the court then send armed cops to your place and FORCE you to sell it to him?


----------



## watcher

where I want to said:


> A person does not have to pass your personal test of religious belief to have the right to practice.


No they have the right to practice any way they wish. They are going to have to pass God's "personal test" to avoid His vengeance. 

But hey, if they want to practice another way I don't care, up to the point it butts against how I want to practice.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> First off no one has a "right" to buy a cake. As I have stated time and time and time again if something must be provided to you by someone else it is NOT A RIGHT.
> 
> Second, using your logic you have no freedom to do with your personal property as you wish. Say you have a dog for sale and someone comes up and says he wants to buy it to feed to his pet tiger. If you refuse to sell it to him because you think feeding dogs to tigers is 'bad'. He runs to the courts and says that he had the "legal right" to buy the dog and your refused to sell it to him ONLY because you discriminated against him because of his personal beliefs were different than yours therefore you have violated his rights. Should the court then send armed cops to your place and FORCE you to sell it to him?


No one has a right to buy a cake or sell a cake. There are however laws that you have to follow when you sell that cake.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> First off no one has a "right" to buy a cake. As I have stated time and time and time again if something must be provided to you by someone else it is NOT A RIGHT.
> 
> Second, using your logic you have no freedom to do with your personal property as you wish. Say you have a dog for sale and someone comes up and says he wants to buy it to feed to his pet tiger. If you refuse to sell it to him because you think feeding dogs to tigers is 'bad'. He runs to the courts and says that he had the "legal right" to buy the dog and your refused to sell it to him ONLY because you discriminated against him because of his personal beliefs were different than yours therefore you have violated his rights. Should the court then send armed cops to your place and FORCE you to sell it to him?


If the same guy stops in because he saw your dog for sale sign, says nothing to you about his tiger... would you still say he has no right to buy your dog? You have NO control over what he does with the dog after you sell it. It is not your property any longer. If you dont want your dog fed to a tiger... I suggest you not put him up for sale.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You really have to look beyond those individual words and try to understand their meaning. They forbid the states from infringing upon the citizens rights making all of us "equal" under the law. IE if john and Jane have the legal right to purchase your house or your car or your cake.... so do bill and bobby.


No they don't. There are plenty of distinctions to be made. If I think that a person is loud and unpleasant then I can refuse to deal with him. 
What there are is catagories of illegal discrimination such as race, color, religion or national origin which are the ones, with certain ADA issues, that the Feds cover. Some states have thrown in other hot button catagories such as age, sexual orientation or whatever in certain cases and in certain activities.

So the issue depends on the law of the state. The Federal laws are much more limited- just ask any woman who was involved in the ERA cause. "Equality" depends on the political whim of the moment- ie lobbyists.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> Now give me the definition of righteously married and convince me that every wedding cake provided by this bakery was only provided after those conditions were met.


I said I was done but once more. There is no such quote- I made it up hoping to display that making up your own rules for other people to obey is a never ending silliness. The issue is what the person believes, not what you think they ought to believe. In otherwords, their religion.
Then whether their belief conflicts with another person's rights as specified under the law is another issue and one not so simple in application. It is not simply you deciding what is right in your own mind and enforcing your standards on everyone else. It is looking at both sides and deciding whether there is an overriding benefit to one or the other side of a disagreement.


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> Sorry, that's not what the 14th amendment says. It means exactly what is written.


Yeppers.... and what is written is that the states must protect every citizens rights equally under the law.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers.... and what is written is that the states must protect every citizens rights equally under the law.


As the Federal law defines rights. Everything is not a right. So the government does not make people equal but does limit actionable inequality in very limited situations. And no more than those situations.


----------



## Evons hubby

where I want to said:


> No they don't. There are plenty of distinctions to be made. If I think that a person is loud and unpleasant then I can refuse to deal with him.
> What there are is catagories of illegal discrimination such as race, color, religion or national origin which are the ones, with certain ADA issues, that the Geds cover. Some states have thrown in other hot button catagories such as age, sexual orientation or whatever in certain cases and in certain activities.
> 
> So the issue depends on the law of the state. The Federal laws are much more limited- just ask any woman who was involved in the ERA cause. "Equality" depends on the political whim of the moment- ie lobbyists.


You will get no quarrel from me that its a matter of state law.... but we must remember that state laws need to adhere to the limitations placed upon them by the Constitution. A state law written in such a manner as to promote discrimination against particular groups... while allowing other groups permission to take part in the same activities obviously is not going to stand muster against the Constitution. Loud, obnoxious, or otherwise disruptive behavior is not tolerable by any group... be they persons of color or any particular religion. Refusing to do business with someone who is well behaved and conduct their business responsibly... really should not be discriminated against by any one. Its tacky at best... and illegal as well in most states.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You will get no quarrel from me that its a matter of state law.... but we must remember that state laws need to adhere to the limitations placed upon them by the Constitution. A state law written in such a manner as to promote discrimination against particular groups... while allowing other groups permission to take part in the same activities obviously is not going to stand muster against the Constitution. Loud, obnoxious, or otherwise disruptive behavior is not tolerable by any group... be they persons of color or any particular religion. Refusing to do business with someone who is well behaved and conduct their business responsibly... really should not be discriminated against by any one. Its tacky at best... and illegal as well in most states.


But unless a person is a protected group and it's a protected activity, it is perfectly legal to exercise your discrimination. Tacky or not. 
Thus the Knights of Columbus may restrict it's membership based on religion while the Rotary Club would find itself in court.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> No one has a right to buy a cake or sell a cake. There are however laws that you have to follow when you sell that cake.


But what happens when the law runs headlong into not only a personal freedom (the freedom to do with your PRIVATE property as you wish) but also a constitutionally guaranteed right (the right to religious freedom)?

Also, as I have asked, where does the government get the power to make such a law? If you read the USC you will find out that it severely limits the power of the government. It says if a power is not SPECIFICALLY given to the government then the government DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER. Read that pesky 10th amendment if you doubt it. If the government does not have the power to make such a law that law is unconstitutional.

I have repeatedly asked someone to show me where in the USC the government is given the power to force you to sell your private property to someone you don't wish to sell to. So far the only attempts have focused on the 14th amendment but as has been pointed out, again repeatedly, only applies to States and governments entities not individual citizens. The only way for the 14th to apply here is to state that all property is owned by the State thereby giving it the power to control its sell.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If the same guy stops in because he saw your dog for sale sign, says nothing to you about his tiger... would you still say he has no right to buy your dog?


Yes, my dog is my property and no one has a RIGHT to take my property w/o my consent. He has the freedom to offer to buy it from me just as I have the freedom to tell him I won't sell it to him.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> You have NO control over what he does with the dog after you sell it. It is not your property any longer. If you dont want your dog fed to a tiger... I suggest you not put him up for sale.


But until the moment the sell is complete the dog is MINE, correct? If so where does the government get the power to tell me to whom I must sell or not sell it to?


BTW, don't go all liberal on me and avoid the question put to you. If you you found out your dog was going to be feed to a tiger and did not want that to happen do you think the federal government should have the power to *FORCE* you to sell it? Give a simple "Yes" or "No".


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> But what happens when the law runs headlong into not only a personal freedom (the freedom to do with your PRIVATE property as you wish) but also a constitutionally guaranteed right (the right to religious freedom)?
> 
> Also, as I have asked, where does the government get the power to make such a law? If you read the USC you will find out that it severely limits the power of the government. It says if a power is not SPECIFICALLY given to the government then the government DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER. Read that pesky 10th amendment if you doubt it. If the government does not have the power to make such a law that law is unconstitutional.
> 
> I have repeatedly asked someone to show me where in the USC the government is given the power to force you to sell your private property to someone you don't wish to sell to. So far the only attempts have focused on the 14th amendment but as has been pointed out, again repeatedly, only applies to States and governments entities not individual citizens. The only way for the 14th to apply here is to state that all property is owned by the State thereby giving it the power to control its sell.


Rights, freedoms and laws have balancing points. Personal freedom does not trump everything just as Religion does not either.

I have asked it before where is your tipping point?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers.... and what is written is that the states must protect every citizens rights equally under the law.


Again questions pop up. 

The first off what is a "right"? Do you think I have the "right" to something if it must first be taken from you? The ONLY way this can be true is to say that all property belongs to the state and it has the power to determine who is allowed to have it.

The second is, where does a state get the power to make a law which requires you to sell your private property to anyone who has the money? There are probably some state constitutions which allow it but the USC does not give the federal government the power to make a law.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> Rights, freedoms and laws have balancing points. Personal freedom does not trump everything just as Religion does not either.
> 
> I have asked it before where is your tipping point?


Finally the thought process has arrived at the point at which a real useful discussion may, only may, happen.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Rights, freedoms and laws have balancing points. Personal freedom does not trump everything just as Religion does not either.
> 
> I have asked it before where is your tipping point?


When you want to take my freedom to fulfill yours.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Finally the thought process has arrived at the point at which a real useful discussion may, only may, happen.


I have asked this question a couple of times already. No one had answered yet.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> When you want to take my freedom to fulfill yours.



What if my freedom and your freedom are at odds. How do you believe we should decide?


----------



## painterswife

I personally believe that discrimination based on how you were born is not trumped by someones personal freedoms. If you don't have the right to know know someones, sex, age, religion or sexual orientation then you don't have the right to to make any decisions based something because of them if you are operating a business.

Your religion does not give you the right to make laws that impact anyone's life.

That said I believe if you don't want to sell that cake to someone for their same sex celebration, I think that if you ask every customer what they are buying from you is for and make sure that you are not selling anything for a same sex celebration than you can do that.


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> I said I was done but once more. There is no such quote- I made it up hoping to display that making up your own rules for other people to obey is a never ending silliness. The issue is what the person believes, not what you think they ought to believe. In otherwords, their religion.
> Then whether their belief conflicts with another person's rights as specified under the law is another issue and one not so simple in application. It is not simply you deciding what is right in your own mind and enforcing your standards on everyone else. It is looking at both sides and deciding whether there is an overriding benefit to one or the other side of a disagreement.


I have no desire to enforce my standards on others. I simply expect that if they are going to do business based on a set of standards they openly state those standards and apply them evenly. To the case in point. If you are not going to sell a wedding cake to a couple based on your religous beliefs I would only require that you openly post those beliefs in your bakery and question all those wishing to buy your wedding cake to ensure that their conduct meets your religous standards before allowing their purchase.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> First off no one has a "right" to buy a cake. As I have stated time and time and time again if something must be provided to you by someone else it is NOT A RIGHT.
> 
> Second, using your logic you have no freedom to do with your personal property as you wish. Say you have a dog for sale and someone comes up and says he wants to buy it to feed to his pet tiger. If you refuse to sell it to him because you think feeding dogs to tigers is 'bad'. He runs to the courts and says that he had the "legal right" to buy the dog and your refused to sell it to him ONLY because you discriminated against him because of his personal beliefs were different than yours therefore you have violated his rights. Should the court then send armed cops to your place and FORCE you to sell it to him?


The answer to the dog dilemma is simple and is addressed quite often. I have seen many ads in many venues advertising farm animals for sale as pets only. This quite openly sets the terms of the sale and ostensibly ensures the seller that the pet sheep beloved by their children won't be served at the local shawarma shop next week. It is quite logical to restrict a sale to someone who would feed the dog to a tiger, but quite illogical to then sell it to someone who wishes to feed it to a lion.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> I have no desire to enforce my standards on others. I simply expect that if they are going to do business based on a set of standards they openly state those standards and apply them evenly. To the case in point. If you are not going to sell a wedding cake to a couple based on your religous beliefs I would only require that you openly post those beliefs in your bakery and question all those wishing to buy your wedding cake to ensure that their conduct meets your religous standards before allowing their purchase.


If the objection is that if your religion prohibits your participation in a certain practice, then the burden of questioning all people is simply a punitive harassment designed to curtail the business. Simply producing only what you find religiously tolerable would be adequate. Then the responsibily for use is the customers. A sort of personal don't ask don't tell policy.
I suspect this is a case where two idiots decided to prove it to each other rather than a real problem that was insoluable.


----------



## Vash

mmoetc said:


> If you are not going to sell a wedding cake to a couple based on your religous beliefs *I would only require* that you openly post those beliefs in your bakery and question all those wishing to buy your wedding cake to ensure that their conduct meets your religous standards before allowing their purchase.


Who are you again? Why should people care what _YOU_ want them to do with _THEIR_ business?


----------



## mmoetc

Vash said:


> Who are you again? Why should people care what _YOU_ want them to do with _THEIR_ business?


I am but a wayward poster on an Internet forum offering my humble opinion of how I would like the world to be. You?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> What if my freedom and your freedom are at odds. How do you believe we should decide?


That's what governments and courts are supposed to be for. They are supposed to be like the referees in a sporting event. They are supposed to IMPARTIALITY enforce the rules AS WRITTEN. They are not supposed to make up new rules on the fly and apply them different based on which team they *feel* should win.

But when the government is ignoring the law of the land, i.e. the United States Constitution, it comes down to mob rule. AKA popular opinion. If my freedom is in vogue this week then I get to suppress yours no matter what the rule are supposed to be.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Who are you again? Why should people care what _YOU_ want them to do with _THEIR_ business?


Maybe a citizen, who gets to voice an opinion.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Your religion does not give you the right to make laws that impact anyone's life.


But your sexual preference does?


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Maybe a citizen, who gets to *voice an opinion.*


And he's free to voice that opinion as long as he doesn't try to force it on others.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> The answer to the dog dilemma is simple and is addressed quite often. I have seen many ads in many venues advertising farm animals for sale as pets only. This quite openly sets the terms of the sale and ostensibly ensures the seller that the pet sheep beloved by their children won't be served at the local shawarma shop next week. It is quite logical to restrict a sale to someone who would feed the dog to a tiger, but quite illogical to then sell it to someone who wishes to feed it to a lion.


 
By this reasoning a business should be able to state upfront they won't offer any services for same sex marriage or whatever it is they don't want to do. Either a person can decide who they'll sell too or they can't.... you can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> That's what governments and courts are supposed to be for. They are supposed to be like the referees in a sporting event. They are supposed to IMPARTIALITY enforce the rules AS WRITTEN. They are not supposed to make up new rules on the fly and apply them different based on which team they *feel* should win.
> 
> But when the government is ignoring the law of the land, i.e. the United States Constitution, it comes down to mob rule. AKA popular opinion. If my freedom is in vogue this week then I get to suppress yours no matter what the rule are supposed to be.


So the original complaint went to court, the courts ruled in their favor. Many think it was a good ruling. The system is in process.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> But your sexual preference does?


Does yours?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> So the original complaint went to court, the courts ruled in their favor. Many think it was a good ruling. The system is in process.


 
That doesn't mean it'll go in their favor every time.

Next time the court may have more of an understanding of freedom and not worry about being PC enough or bow to the pressure of 10% of the country. Hopefully when the court rules in favor of the next bakery you'll remember many will think it's a good ruling. If Chick Fillet and Phil Roberson showed us anything it's that American's are tired of cowering to PC bullies.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Does yours?


Only if she's a homosexual, apparently.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Does yours?


Are you capable of answering a simple question?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> That doesn't mean it'll go in their favor every time.
> 
> Next time the court may have more of an understanding of freedom and not worry about being PC enough or bow to the pressure of 10% of the country. Hopefully when the court rules in favor of the next bakery you'll remember many will think it's a good ruling. If Chick Fillet and Phil Roberson showed us anything it's that American's are tired of cowering to PC bullies.


I have no problem with that.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Are you capable of answering a simple question?


I answered, you just don't approve of my answer.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Only if she's a homosexual, apparently.


Not really. There are laws with regards to marriage only being between a man and a women.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I answered, you just don't approve of my answer.


#724 I asked you a question and in #728 you didn't answer. You asked another question, something I've noticed you and a few others do often when asked something. Instead of giving an answer you try to deflect with a question.:shrug: I'm still waiting for answers to quite a few questions people have asked y'all to answer in this thread. Either that or you come up with off the wall scenarios that have nothing to do with the subject being discussed. If you're wanting to debate why keep avoiding?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Not really. There are laws with regards to marriage only being between a man and a women.


 
I thought if the laws where on the books then they where good ones. You should be happy with the ruling on gay marriage not being legal in most states. After all laws are a good thing and apparently many people agree about marriage


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I thought if the laws where on the books then they where good ones. You should be happy with the ruling on gay marriage not being legal in most states. After all laws are a good thing and apparently many people agree about marriage


Where did I say that all laws on the books are good?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Where did I say that all laws on the books are good?


 
You and I have discussed different laws before and you have stated that certain things are laws because many people agree with it therefor the laws where good ones.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> You and I have discussed different laws before and you have stated that certain things are laws because many people agree with it therefor the laws where good ones.


Never, have I ever said all laws are good ones.

In fact you should know that because you know I disagree with laws that go against same sex marriage.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> By this reasoning a business should be able to state upfront they won't offer any services for same sex marriage or whatever it is they don't want to do. Either a person can decide who they'll sell too or they can't.... you can't have your cake and eat it too.


Some aren't even allowed to have cake. A bakery either sells wedding cakes or it doesn't sell wedding cakes. In many places there is no difference between a wedding of two men and a wedding of a man and a woman therefor the cake should be equally available to both. If a baker has a religious proscription against providing a cake to those ceremonies that don't meet the standards of their religion they must not provide a cake to any couple who doesn't meet their standards. It is not about providing favorable treatment to any one couple but providing equal treatment to all couples.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> What if my freedom and your freedom are at odds. How do you believe we should decide?


Call it a draw. Agree to disagree, walk off and forget the whole deal. Otherwise this childish nonsense will go on forever, with the change agents dredging up one bit of nonsense after the other to change everything just because they perceive they can blackmail some "authority" to twist the "law" in order that they might get their own way.

The statement "The Devil can quote scripture to get his own way" applies to much more than "religion".


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> Some aren't even allowed to have cake. A bakery either sells wedding cakes or it doesn't sell wedding cakes. In many places there is no difference between a wedding of two men and a wedding of a man and a woman therefor the cake should be equally available to both. If a baker has a religious proscription against providing a cake to those ceremonies that don't meet the standards of their religion they must not provide a cake to any couple who doesn't meet their standards. It is not about providing favorable treatment to any one couple but providing equal treatment to all couples.


Who determines what the standards of the baker's religion are? You? Who determines what "equality" means? You?


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> Who determines what the standards of the baker's religion are? You? Who determines what "equality" means? You?


The baker is free to determine the standards of his or her religion. Equality is easily defined. Equality doesn't need to be determined by anyone. People are either treated equally or they're not.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> The baker is free to determine the standards of his or her religion. Equality is easily defined. Equality doesn't need to be determined by anyone. People are either treated equally or they're not.


Does that apply to the president too? State, and local governments?


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> The baker is free to determine the standards of his or her religion. Equality is easily defined. Equality doesn't need to be determined by anyone. People are either treated equally or they're not.


You must have a truck load of red flags.
So under the ADA laws, a blind person gets equality by being provided with a whole 'nother employee to read for them or is that unreasonable? In case someone doesn't speak English, is it equal treatment to have the right to conduct your job in the language of your national origin. Because native born speakers are able to do that? Are quotas an acceptible method of achieving Hispanic equality? What's a hispanic? Etc etc etc.
We have not yet started seeing the issues gay marriage raises. Those are going to be spent decades in courts with people being ever increasingly controlled by the few. Ever heard of the Uniform Marriage Act? Or the effect on Social Security? On VA benefits? Pensions? Inheritances? One who is a valid spouse in cases of defective marriages? In the case of defective divorce? All the old presumptions do not apply in gay marriage. Some will no be there any longer and new presumptions will be offered. How do you tell the difference between a valid marriage and just good buddies trying to cut a real spouse out of an inheritance out of spite? Wait until there are court cases alleging that illegal discrimination was the reason for not going through a ceremoney and thus a presumption of marriage should apply.
Eventually the tax law, family law and childrens issues are all going to change. Marriage was a way of sorting out who gets what and who is responsible for whom and was a vehicle for insuring that women and children had some protection from arbitrary spouse's behavior and women especially got "credit" for husband and child care time. 
My feeling is that gradually marriage will cease to be assumed to assure these things that have been developed over millenia. All this will be re-litigated and there will be losers in the process. Legislation will cease someday to account for non-working spouses.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> The baker is free to determine the standards of his or her religion. Equality is easily defined. Equality doesn't need to be determined by anyone. People are either treated equally or they're not.


Way too vague. If equality is so easily defined, define it. What are you talking about? Equal income levels? Equal intelligence? Equal housing? Equal car ownership? Equal job opportunities? Equal education? Equal savings? I suppose you would put all that under equal "rights"? Yet it should be obvious to anyone that there is no equality under those things.

Equality is a vague term. Jefferson knew that when he wrote the "all men are created equal" phrase. They're not. He only wished that they were and thought that, maybe some day they could be, but he did not hold much hope for that (read his writings to find out what he thought about the levels of intelligence of minorities). 

John Adams argued vehemently against the phrase, because Adams knew that there was no such thing (don't expound against him, he and Abigail were famous abolitionists). But Jefferson's phrase won out, and the courts have been going crazy trying to figure out what in the H that "equality" means ever since. 

People who strain for equality constantly complain that there is none, not even under the law (OJ Simpson et al). You'd think that, after 238 years we could have figured it out, but no, things are presently worse than ever, with those with bizarre orientations now attempting to lord it over others, and the whole lot seem to now think that "the pursuit of happiness" means the next pleasure sensation instead of land ownership, which was Jefferson's original intent of that phrase. 

How, then, can anyone possibly define "equality"?


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> Way too vague. If equality is so easily defined, define it. What are you talking about? Equal income levels? Equal intelligence? Equal housing? Equal car ownership? Equal job opportunities? Equal education? Equal savings? I suppose you would put all that under equal "rights"? Yet it should be obvious to anyone that there is no equality under those things.
> 
> Equality is a vague term. Jefferson knew that when he wrote the "all men are created equal" phrase. They're not. He only wished that they were and thought that, maybe some day they could be, but he did not hold much hope for that (read his writings to find out what he thought about the levels of intelligence of minorities).
> 
> John Adams argued vehemently against the phrase, because Adams knew that there was no such thing (don't expound against him, he and Abigail were famous abolitionists). But Jefferson's phrase won out, and the courts have been going crazy trying to figure out what in the H that "equality" means ever since.
> 
> People who strain for equality constantly complain that there is none, not even under the law (OJ Simpson et al). You'd think that, after 238 years we could have figured it out, but no, things are presently worse than ever, with those with bizarre orientations now attempting to lord it over others, and the whole lot seem to now think that "the pursuit of happiness" means the next pleasure sensation instead of land ownership, which was Jefferson's original intent of that phrase.
> 
> How, then, can anyone possibly define "equality"?


I'll remember all if this next time someone posts that we all have the same, equal opportunity to succeed and prosper in this country and reach higher income levels simply through harder work. All people having equal skills and abilities is indeed unrealistic. All people being given the the same opportunity to utilize the intelligence and abilities they do possess is quite realistic and , in my opinion, a noble goal.


----------



## beowoulf90

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If the same guy stops in because he saw your dog for sale sign, says nothing to you about his tiger... would you still say he has no right to buy your dog? You have NO control over what he does with the dog after you sell it. It is not your property any longer. If you dont want your dog fed to a tiger... I suggest you not put him up for sale.


Not True! the SPCA and other orgs require you to sign papers that allow them access to your property. If you refuse they won't sell you the animal in question..

So I guess discrimination is ok...
Because I'm a Individual Freedom type I won't sign their warrant-less search papers, so they are allowed to discriminate against me..

Well imagine that...It's fine for some to do it, but not others...


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> I'll remember all if this next time someone posts that we all have the same, equal opportunity to succeed and prosper in this country and reach higher income levels simply through harder work. All people having equal skills and abilities is indeed unrealistic. All people being given the the same opportunity to utilize the intelligence and abilities they do possess is quite realistic and , in my opinion, a noble goal.


Again, too vague. You gave no definition of "equality", just your interpretation of your idea of that word. 

Example: how about the equal "opportunity to utilize the intelligence and abilities they do possess" between someone born in the ghetto and, say, any "trust fund baby"?


----------



## beowoulf90

mmoetc said:


> The baker is free to determine the standards of his or her religion. Equality is easily defined. Equality doesn't need to be determined by anyone. *People are either treated equally or they're not.*



But there is a problem if you think Government is the one who should enforce this..

Why can a black person use the "n" word in jest, in song, without any consequences etc. Yet if a white person does the same thing they are a racist. So "equality" doesn't apply to this, yet it is enforced by Government. 

If a black person beats up anyone and uses racial slurs during the beating, they get charged with assault etc. But if a white person does the exact same thing and uses racial slurs they are charged with a hate crime on top of the other charges and face more time in jail etc..

So tell me again how they should be treated equally when you have Government sanctioned racism. Now you and others want some religions to be determined "less viable" than others sexual orientation.

You (in general) and Government have determined that a persons sexual orientation has more value, thus more "rights" then a person's religion. You (in general) and Government have decided that You (in general) and Government can violate that religious freedom to push an agenda.. You expect 1 religion to disregard their beliefs and cater to your agenda, while other religions aren't forced to cater to the same agenda..

Imagine that the agenda this week over rules the Right to religious freedom..


----------



## mmoetc

beowoulf90 said:


> But there is a problem if you think Government is the one who should enforce this..
> 
> Why can a black person use the "n" word in jest, in song, without any consequences etc. Yet if a white person does the same thing they are a racist. So "equality" doesn't apply to this, yet it is enforced by Government.
> 
> If a black person beats up anyone and uses racial slurs during the beating, they get charged with assault etc. But if a white person does the exact same thing and uses racial slurs they are charged with a hate crime on top of the other charges and face more time in jail etc..
> 
> So tell me again how they should be treated equally when you have Government sanctioned racism. Now you and others want some religions to be determined "less viable" than others sexual orientation.
> 
> You (in general) and Government have determined that a persons sexual orientation has more value, thus more "rights" then a person's religion. You (in general) and Government have decided that You (in general) and Government can violate that religious freedom to push an agenda.. You expect 1 religion to disregard their beliefs and cater to your agenda, while other religions aren't forced to cater to the same agenda..
> 
> Imagine that the agenda this week over rules the Right to religious freedom..


You make the incorrect assumption that I support hate speech and hate crime laws. I don't.

As I've repeatedly said, I have no issue if you wish to run your business in accordance with your religous beliefs. I would simply ask that you openly state all those beliefs and restrictions openly and abide by them all.


----------



## Evons hubby

beowoulf90 said:


> Not True! the SPCA and other orgs require you to sign papers that allow them access to your property. If you refuse they won't sell you the animal in question..
> 
> So I guess discrimination is ok...
> Because I'm a Individual Freedom type I won't sign their warrant-less search papers, so they are allowed to discriminate against me..
> 
> Well imagine that...It's fine for some to do it, but not others...


What discrimination? They have may have requirements or condition the have to be met..... but anyone who meets those conditions can get a dog. For example my dog had to be "fixed" at my expense before I could pick him up from the pound. Same rules for every dog or potential buyers.


----------



## mmoetc

beowoulf90 said:


> Not True! the SPCA and other orgs require you to sign papers that allow them access to your property. If you refuse they won't sell you the animal in question..
> 
> So I guess discrimination is ok...
> Because I'm a Individual Freedom type I won't sign their warrant-less search papers, so they are allowed to discriminate against me..
> 
> Well imagine that...It's fine for some to do it, but not others...


By signing the papers you have openly and freely entered into a contract. No different than a mortgage lender writing in a restriction that you may not use the property as a rental unit. Don't like the terms, don't sign the contract. The problem only arises if different contracts are offered to different people based on things like race, religion, or sexual orientation.


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> Again, too vague. You gave no definition of "equality", just your interpretation of your idea of that word.
> 
> Example: how about the equal "opportunity to utilize the intelligence and abilities they do possess" between someone born in the ghetto and, say, any "trust fund baby"?


I could be specious and say they should both have the same opportunity to be stopped by the police and searched and have the same opportunity to do jail time for the marijuana they both possess. I have no illusions that equality of opportunity will ever exist in all things. That doesn't mean I don't believe the best course of action is to continually strive as a society to make it so. As with many things I could continue to answer each of your hypotheticals and await your next but I've decided I've said enough on this issue.


----------



## painterswife

When did the what if's and the slippery slope become an excuse to not strive towards a better world?


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> When did the what if's and the slippery slope become an excuse to not strive towards a better world?


What "what if's"? Facts are facts, not maybes. Maybe you could be Superman, maybe you could be Warren Buffett, maybe you could be something that you're not.

So, you're saying that some hard working people who developed a business out of nothing and are somewhat successful at it are legitimate targets for some agenda-driven rich kids who have nothing better to do than to selfishly misuse the legal system for their own benefit. And you call that "strive toward a better world"?


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> What "what if's"? Facts are facts, not maybes. Maybe you could be Superman, maybe you could be Warren Buffett, maybe you could be something that you're not.
> 
> So, you're saying that some hard working people who developed a business out of nothing and are somewhat successful at it are legitimate targets for some agenda-driven rich kids who have nothing better to do than to selfishly misuse the legal system for their own benefit. And you call that "strive toward a better world"?


Putting your spin on my words dose not make them my thoughts.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Never, have I ever said all laws are good ones.
> 
> In fact you should know that because you know I disagree with laws that go against same sex marriage.


 
Didn't an to imply you thought all laws where good, but you have used the argument before with laws you agree with, that if it's a law it's because many agree with it therefor those against it should live with it.:shrug:


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Didn't an to imply you thought all laws where good, but you have used the argument before with laws you agree with, that if it's a law it's because many agree with it therefor those against it should live with it.:shrug:


You should stop digging that hole. I have also said that fighting against the laws that you disagree with is an important part of the system.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> Some aren't even allowed to have cake. A bakery either sells wedding cakes or it doesn't sell wedding cakes. In many places there is no difference between a wedding of two men and a wedding of a man and a woman therefor the cake should be equally available to both. If a baker has a religious proscription against providing a cake to those ceremonies that don't meet the standards of their religion they must not provide a cake to any couple who doesn't meet their standards. It is not about providing favorable treatment to any one couple but providing equal treatment to all couples.


 
OK I'll use our business as an example. We paint residential and commercial. We are under no obligation to paint every building people want to hire us for. I could paint the house next to you and still say no when you wanted to hire me to paint yours no matter what my reasons are. Are you saying I HAVE to paint everything someone wants to hire me to paint?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> You should stop digging that hole. I have also said that fighting against the laws that you disagree with is an important part of the system.


 
No hole just pointing out sometimes your augments aren't consistent. Of course it is just my opinion.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I personally believe that discrimination based on how you were born is not trumped by someones personal freedoms. If you don't have the right to know know someones, sex, age, religion or sexual orientation then you don't have the right to to make any decisions based something because of them if you are operating a business.


What you think really has nothing to do with it. I know people who think that blacks, Jews, Catholics and other races should not have any rights at all. Would you like to see our nation with their ideology in charge? If the government can ignore the constitution to allow your beliefs to rule what is to prevent it from one day allowing theirs to be the 'law of the land'?




painterswife said:


> Your religion does not give you the right to make laws that impact anyone's life.


According to the USC the government can NOT make a law which requires me to violate my religion.




painterswife said:


> That said I believe if you don't want to sell that cake to someone for their same sex celebration, I think that if you ask every customer what they are buying from you is for and make sure that you are not selling anything for a same sex celebration than you can do that.


How is that different if someone tells you w/o your asking? You are still not selling it to them because of their life style.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> OK I'll use our business as an example. We paint residential and commercial. We are under no obligation to paint every building people want to hire us for. I could paint the house next to you and still say no when you wanted to hire me to paint yours no matter what my reasons are. Are you saying I HAVE to paint everything someone wants to hire me to paint?


Since we also own a painting business, I will answer that scenario. No you don't. However if offer your old paint buckets for sale for 1.00 each and someone shows up and has the money in hand, you can't decide not to sell them to them because they are gay. You might not like it but they can take you to court if they like.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> The answer to the dog dilemma is simple and is addressed quite often. I have seen many ads in many venues advertising farm animals for sale as pets only. This quite openly sets the terms of the sale and ostensibly ensures the seller that the pet sheep beloved by their children won't be served at the local shawarma shop next week. It is quite logical to restrict a sale to someone who would feed the dog to a tiger, but quite illogical to then sell it to someone who wishes to feed it to a lion.


So if the cake shop had a sign which said they only sale to people who would use their cake in such a way which does not violate their religious beliefs then you would be ok with them refusing to sell to someone who comes in and states the cake will be used in a way which would violate those beliefs?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> So the original complaint went to court, the courts ruled in their favor. Many think it was a good ruling. The system is in process.


But the court ruled based on a law which the government had no power to enact. That's like saying it was a good ruling when Rosa Parks was fined for riding in the front of a public bus.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> So if the cake shop had a sign which said they only sale to people who would use their cake in such a way which does not violate their religious beliefs then you would be ok with them refusing to sell to someone who comes in and states the cake will be used in a way which would violate those beliefs?


Yes, as long as they have spelled it out before hand and have not changed it just when they felt like it.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Some aren't even allowed to have cake. A bakery either sells wedding cakes or it doesn't sell wedding cakes. In many places there is no difference between a wedding of two men and a wedding of a man and a woman therefor the cake should be equally available to both. If a baker has a religious proscription against providing a cake to those ceremonies that don't meet the standards of their religion they must not provide a cake to any couple who doesn't meet their standards. It is not about providing favorable treatment to any one couple but providing equal treatment to all couples.


And how do we know this baker had not refused other people who openly stated or otherwise made it clear they were going to use their private property in a way which they didn't agree?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Since we also own a painting business, I will answer that scenario. No you don't. However if offer your old paint buckets for sale for 1.00 each and someone shows up and has the money in hand, you can't decide not to sell them to them because they are gay. You might not like it but they can take you to court if they like.


 
Baking a cake is no different than painting a house. Your being hired for your services and you have the right to refuse anyone. You are being hired to do a job according to the costumers desires in each case. Wedding cakes are not off the shelf, they're contract orders, same as painting. As for the paint buckets...sure I can  I tell people no all the time.... be it for paint, buckets, candles, soap, eggs, farm animals. I can sell to whoever I wish.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> No hole just pointing out sometimes your augments aren't consistent. Of course it is just my opinion.


My arguments are not consistent or you just try to pick and choose what you want to buffer what you think I said. You have had to back track in this thread a couple of times so far.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I'll remember all if this next time someone posts that we all have the same, equal opportunity to succeed and prosper in this country and reach higher income levels simply through harder work. All people having equal skills and abilities is indeed unrealistic. All people being given the the same opportunity to utilize the intelligence and abilities they do possess is quite realistic and , in my opinion, a noble goal.


You only have the right to such equality in government activity, not in your private life.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> By signing the papers you have openly and freely entered into a contract. No different than a mortgage lender writing in a restriction that you may not use the property as a rental unit. Don't like the terms, don't sign the contract. The problem only arises if different contracts are offered to different people based on things like race, religion, or sexual orientation.


Again I must ask where the federal government gets the power to tell you how you may dispose of or use your private property?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> When did the what if's and the slippery slope become an excuse to not strive towards a better world?


Letting the government try to make a better world has lead to some very bad things. I suggest you do a little research into history. Read about what the Khmer Rouge to make a better world.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> You should stop digging that hole. *I have also said that fighting against the laws that you disagree with is an important part of the system.*


 So...people who want to run _THEIR_ businesses the way _THEY_ want to aren't allowed to do just that?

The bakers in question have to just suck it up and bake the cake?


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> So...people who want to run _THEIR_ businesses the way _THEY_ want to aren't allowed to do just that?
> 
> The bakers in question have to just suck it up and bake the cake?


No they can not bake it and if the customer wishes they can sue, but I think you know that as it is the reason for this thread in the first place.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> No they can not bake it and if the customer wishes they can sue, but I think you know that as it is the reason for this thread in the first place.


Let's recap:


Couple goes to baker wanting cake.

Baker refuses to make cake on grounds of religion.

Couple sues baker.

What can happen after court stuff pans out:


Couple wins and baker is now forced to make cakes regardless of religious beliefs, thus violating the baker's 1st amendment rights.

Baker wins and couple is forced to go to a different baker for a cake. As the cake in question was *NEVER* the couple's property to begin with they lose nothing and thus no rights were violated.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> Putting your spin on my words dose not make them my thoughts.


A better world would be full employment; adequate housing for everyone; peace in the Nation and, hopefully, the world. How is that my own individual agenda-driven "spin"? Seems to me that is what we all want.

What we *DON'T* want is this constant nagging about petty agenda-driven crap that means nothing to anyone but a very few people, and that all but buries more important issues.


----------



## beowoulf90

mmoetc said:


> You make the incorrect assumption that I support hate speech and hate crime laws. I don't.
> 
> As I've repeatedly said, I have no issue if you wish to run your business in accordance with your religous beliefs. I would simply ask that you openly state all those beliefs and restrictions openly and abide by them all.


:rotfl:

enough said


----------



## beowoulf90

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What discrimination? They have may have requirements or condition the have to be met..... but anyone who meets those conditions can get a dog. For example my dog had to be "fixed" at my expense before I could pick him up from the pound. Same rules for every dog or potential buyers.


So if you don't like those requirements you have to go some where else..

Well imagine that! 
The hypocrisy I see here with some defending the Government forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay couple.. 
Yet the gay couple didn't meet the bakers requirements..

Funny how some can do it and others can't..


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> Yes, as long as they have spelled it out before hand and have not changed it just when they felt like it.


Why?

It is their business, not yours..

You don't have a Right to do business with them, they do not have to do business with you..

Do you have rules stated/posted for your business,

Such as:
You won't paint swastika on the side of a house/building in a Jewish neighborhood?

If not, then why can you refuse to do it? 

Because you want others to have their "rules" posted, yet you don't have to do the same thing.

Funny how some are "above" the laws and the "rules" they want to enforce on others..

Just like the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves in Union held territory or Union / US land. 

It only said the the Confederacy had to free their slaves..

Typical of how some want to enforce laws on others, but not themselves..

Sorry but this person doesn't buy it!


----------



## painterswife

beowoulf90 said:


> Why?
> 
> It is their business, not yours..
> 
> You don't have a Right to do business with them, they do not have to do business with you..
> 
> Do you have rules stated/posted for your business,
> 
> Such as:
> You won't paint swastika on the side of a house/building in a Jewish neighborhood?
> 
> If not, then why can you refuse to do it?
> 
> Because you want others to have their "rules" posted, yet you don't have to do the same thing.
> 
> Funny how some are "above" the laws and the "rules" they want to enforce on others..
> 
> Just like the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves in Union held territory or Union / US land.
> 
> It only said the the Confederacy had to free their slaves..
> 
> Typical of how some want to enforce laws on others, but not themselves..
> 
> Sorry but this person doesn't buy it!


This entire thread is about asking what others think about this. I am entitled to my opinion as are you.

Yes, I have the rules of my business spelled out. It is in the contract or bid that they have to read and sign before I do business with them.So yes, I don't ask anything of anyone else that I am not willing to do myself.

*You don't have to buy it* but you can not by law, discriminate against me when I want to if I chose to sue.


----------



## dixiegal62

Say I own a bakery and this woman comes in to order a wedding cake, while in my shop she is hateful and insults me or my other customers and I decide I don't want to do business with her so I decline making her cake... weeks later I learn I'm being sued by this woman because she's gay. 

I see this sort of thing happening a lot when sue crazy people figure out they can get away with it.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Say I own a bakery and this woman comes in to order a wedding cake, while in my shop she is hateful and insults me or my other customers and I decide I don't want to do business with her so I decline making her cake... weeks later I learn I'm being sued by this woman because she's gay.
> 
> I see this sort of thing happening a lot when sue crazy people figure out they can get away with it.


There is no law against refuse people service because of bad behavior so if you can prove that is the reason you refused to bake the cake you would win the lawsuit. Of course if you allow everyone to insult you and then bake a cake for them, singling one person out, it might just land you in court.

Discrimination as per the law is what we are talking about. Treating everyone the same based on the same behavior.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> There is no law against refuse people service because of bad behavior so if you can prove that is the reason you refused to bake the cake you would win the lawsuit. Of course if you allow everyone to insult you and then bake a cake for them, singling one person out, it might just land you in court.
> 
> Discrimination as per the law is what we are talking about. Treating everyone the same based on the same behavior.


 
Yes but you would have to be able to prove it. If nobody else was in the shop to witness it and you happened to be in a more PC part of the country it would basically be your word against hers and heaven help you if you happened to be Christian because that would only count against you.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes but you would have to be able to prove it. If nobody else was in the shop to witness it and you happened to be in a more PC part of the country it would basically be your word against hers and heaven help you if you happened to be Christian because that would only count against you.


Having to prove it is always part of the lawsuit even for the Same sex couple proving that the cake baker is discriminating.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Having to prove it is always part of the lawsuit even for the Same sex couple proving that the cake baker is discriminating.


 
And we are right back to who really discriminated against who..

Was it the baker who wants the right to practice his beliefs or the gay couple who sued for the right to force their beliefs on the baker. I vote it was the gay couple who discriminated against the baker.


----------



## homstdr74

dixiegal62 said:


> And we are right back to who really discriminated against who..
> 
> Was it the baker who wants the right to practice his beliefs or the gay couple who sued for the right to force their beliefs on the baker. *I vote it was the gay couple who discriminated against the baker*.


Definitely. That's part of the homosexual agenda. Much as do the Islamofascists, they single out likely prospects for maximum media coverage then make a big scene to gather sympathy for their cause.


----------



## dixiegal62

homstdr74 said:


> Definitely. That's part of the homosexual agenda. Much as do the Islamofascists, they single out likely prospects for maximum media coverage then make a big scene to gather sympathy for their cause.


When I think of their agenda I always think of this quote,

You can convince anyone of anything if you just push it at them 100% of the time. They may not believe it completely, but they will still use it to form opinions, especially if they have nothing else to draw on.
*Charles Manson*


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> Definitely. That's part of the homosexual agenda. Much as do the Islamofascists, they single out likely prospects for maximum media coverage then make a big scene to gather sympathy for their cause.


Maybe they have picked up a few pointers from the Religious agenda over the years.


----------



## unregistered41671

They figure if they talk about it enough and keep it in the news, a perversion will become normal.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Maybe they have picked up a few pointers from the Religious agenda over the years.


 
Is any Christian forcing you to buy a cake with a Bible quote written on it?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Is any Christian forcing you to buy a cake with a Bible quote written on it?


No one is forcing them to sell a cake with a copulating same sex couple on it either. Straw man.


----------



## MJsLady

If a straight couple walked in and the baker refused just because they didn't want to do the cake would it have ended the same way?


----------



## keenataz

Possum Belly said:


> They figure if they talk about it enough and keep it in the news, a perversion will become normal.


Hate to break it to you, but for millions of people it is perfectly normal. And for millions of more, like me, it's whatever two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my concern.


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> If a straight couple walked in and the baker refused just because they didn't want to do the cake would it have ended the same way?


If they did not discriminate in a way that is against the law then it would not be the same.


----------



## unregistered41671

keenataz said:


> Hate to break it to you, but for millions of people it is perfectly normal. And for millions of more, like me, it's whatever two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my concern.


I could care less what two consenting people do or don't do behind closed doors. Just stop pushing it in my face trying to justify a perversion. I don't scream from the rooftops that I am HETROsexual. No one needs to know what I do except my beautiful wife. Believe me, I could care less. Just stop trying to make me and my family like it and accept it. Hate to break it to you but millions more know it is a perversion.


----------



## dixiegal62

keenataz said:


> Hate to break it to you, but for millions of people it is perfectly normal. And for millions of more, like me, it's whatever two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my concern.


 
Mine either, its also not my concern how a person chooses to practice their faith. When either one tries to force their lifestyle on me it becomes my concern


----------



## painterswife

Possum Belly said:


> I could care less what two consenting people do or don't do behind closed doors. Just stop pushing it in my face trying to justify a perversion. I don't scream from the rooftops that I am HETROsexual. No one needs to know what I do except my beautiful wife. Believe me, I could care less. Just stop trying to make me and my family like it and accept it. Hate to break it to you but millions more know it is a perversion.


Every time you use the word perversion you scream that you are heterosexual. Every time you get to say "beautiful wife" you are screaming that you are heterosexual. You get to say and do simple things every day to celebrate your marriage that screams your heterosexuality.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> No one is forcing them to sell a cake with a copulating same sex couple on it either. *Straw man*.


Empty words given your post previous to this one...


----------



## MJsLady

So to avoid this the baker could have simple said, no thank you?


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> You get to say and do simple things every day to celebrate your marriage that screams your heterosexuality.


Except go to court and demand legislated respect...


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Except go to court and demand legislated respect...


Legislated does not mean respect or all those same sex couples would not be facing the likes of some of the posts here.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> Every time you use the word perversion you scream that you are heterosexual. Every time you get to say "beautiful wife" you are screaming that you are heterosexual. You get to say and do simple things every day to celebrate your marriage that screams your heterosexuality.


What's your point? At least 98% of the human race is heterosexual.


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> What's your point? At least 98% of the human race is heterosexual.


So what! Does that give them the right to celebrate their spouse in public and the same sex couple can not. That is what was said when they told them to keep it private.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Legislated does not mean respect or all those same sex couples would not be facing the likes of some of the posts here.


It's respecting their wishes and ignoring the wishes of those being legislated against.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> It's respecting their wishes and ignoring the wishes of those being legislated against.


I don't see the relevance. We legislate things that are wrong every day. Should we respect the wishes of murders?

Doing business in the US means you must follow the rules and the laws. You don't have to respect them you either follow them or face the possibility of repercussions.

I for on and all for laws pertaining to discrimination in business. I support that part of the USC.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Maybe they have picked up a few pointers from the Religious agenda over the years.


When was the last time you have heard of a religious organization making a stink (IE using the media and courts) to force someone to put up a religious icon of some sort?

Now, when was the last time you have heard of atheists making a stink to force someone to take down a religious icon of some sort?


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> I don't see the relevance. We legislate things that are wrong every day. Should we respect the wishes of murders?


Speaking once again of straw man...


----------



## MJsLady

So I wonder what is next. 
Is my vegan son going to be able to sue a steak house for discriminating against vegans? Or should he just go some place else for a meal?

The word perversion means change from the norm. The latest number I found is 3.8% of the US population identifies itself with the lgbt lifestyle. That is change from the norm. 

Whether you follow God or not, history and nature both show that this is not a normal way to be. 


I guess what bugs me is, I can see suing some one if what they have done harms you in some way. Stops you from working, prevents you from getting medical care, you know important stuff. I don't see how refusing to bake a cake harms anyone. Regardless of why they didn't want to bake the cake. 

Then again if it was me, I would not have said "I am a Christian and therefore will not bake this cake". I would just politely have refused because I didn't want to do it. My theory is my Christianity is something people should see in my life, not hear from my lips. 

There are many polite ways to say no with out using my Faith as the reason. Also with out lying about it. Especially if I know my Faith will only create an issue that will in the end help the cause of evil. (Such as opening the door to persecution of the saints by laws forcing them to do that which they have been told not to do.) I am not ashamed of it and I will defend it to my dying breath. I however will not use it as a martyr's flag or a baseball bat.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> What's your point? At least 98% of the human race is heterosexual.


According to who?


----------



## keenataz

dixiegal62 said:


> Mine either, its also not my concern how a person chooses to practice their faith. When either one tries to force their lifestyle on me it becomes my concern


Can't disagree with you, but the word perversion which another poster uses has a very negative connotation to most people and can be seen as judgemental. My point was I could really care less what they do.

Now on the subject matter why would a person take their business to someone who obviously didn't want it? Unless there was no alternative. If someone obviously disagreed with my lifestyle I would just as soon not give him my money. Pretty simple and we all win.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> This entire thread is about asking what others think about this. I am entitled to my opinion as are you.
> 
> Yes, I have the rules of my business spelled out. It is in the contract or bid that they have to read and sign before I do business with them.So yes, I don't ask anything of anyone else that I am not willing to do myself.
> 
> *You don't have to buy it* but you can not by law, discriminate against me when I want to if I chose to sue.


And it wasn't that long ago that "by law" a city government could tell a person with dark skin they had to ride in the back of the bus. So I guess because it was the law it was the right thing.

But hey what does the law have to do with it? The law of the land, the US Constitution, is ignored daily so why should any other law be followed by the government?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> There is no law against refuse people service because of bad behavior so if you can prove that is the reason you refused to bake the cake you would win the lawsuit. Of course if you allow everyone to insult you and then bake a cake for them, singling one person out, it might just land you in court.


So it becomes a she said-she said case? Do we now have thought police which are going to decide just what you were thinking when you did something?




painterswife said:


> Discrimination as per the law is what we are talking about. Treating everyone the same based on the same behavior.


Again I ask where does the government get the power to force you to treat anyone any way?


----------



## watcher

MJsLady said:


> If a straight couple walked in and the baker refused just because they didn't want to do the cake would it have ended the same way?


Better question. If said couple came in wanting the baker to make them a "we are moving in together" cake should they have the right to refuse to do that?


----------



## keenataz

MJsLady said:


> So I wonder what is next.
> Is my vegan son going to be able to sue a steak house for discriminating against vegans? Or should he just go some place else for a meal?
> 
> The word perversion means change from the norm. The latest number I found is 3.8% of the US population identifies itself with the lgbt lifestyle. That is change from the norm.
> 
> Whether you follow God or not, history and nature both show that this is not a normal way to be.
> 
> 
> I guess what bugs me is, I can see suing some one if what they have done harms you in some way. Stops you from working, prevents you from getting medical care, you know important stuff. I don't see how refusing to bake a cake harms anyone. Regardless of why they didn't want to bake the cake.
> 
> Then again if it was me, I would not have said "I am a Christian and therefore will not bake this cake". I would just politely have refused because I didn't want to do it. My theory is my Christianity is something people should see in my life, not hear from my lips.
> 
> There are many polite ways to say no with out using my Faith as the reason. Also with out lying about it. Especially if I know my Faith will only create an issue that will in the end help the cause of evil. (Such as opening the door to persecution of the saints by laws forcing them to do that which they have been told not to do.) I am not ashamed of it and I will defend it to my dying breath. I however will not use it as a martyr's flag or a baseball bat.


I really don't think your steak house analogy works here. I think most people who go to a steak house know what they are getting. Now if they refused to serve him anything on their menu, say a salad and baked potato because he is a vegan that would be similar.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> And it wasn't that long ago that "by law" a city government could tell a person with dark skin they had to ride in the back of the bus. So I guess because it was the law it was the right thing.
> 
> But hey what does the law have to do with it? The law of the land, the US Constitution, is ignored daily so why should any other law be followed by the government?


Again. I did not say or imply that. I did say that I stand by this law. I don't stand by all laws.


----------



## MJsLady

watcher said:


> Better question. If said couple came in wanting the baker to make them a "we are moving in together" cake should they have the right to refuse to do that?


Yes they should.


----------



## watcher

keenataz said:


> Hate to break it to you, but for millions of people it is perfectly normal. And for millions of more, like me, it's whatever two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my concern.


But what if they asked to use your bedroom for it? Should they have the right to use force, via the government, to make you? After all if they have the right to force a baker to make them a cake why would they not have the right to take your private property for their use as well? Not a good analogy but we'll go with it for now.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> So it becomes a she said-she said case? Do we now have thought police which are going to decide just what you were thinking when you did something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask where does the government get the power to force you to treat anyone any way?


Yes that is what courts of law are all about, deciding who said what and who the jury believes depending on the evidence.


----------



## watcher

dixiegal62 said:


> Mine either, its also not my concern how a person chooses to practice their faith. When either one tries to force their lifestyle on me it becomes my concern


Time out here. Are you saying you think it was OK for the gays to force their lifestyle on the bakers or that you think the bakers were trying to force theirs on the gays?


----------



## MJsLady

keenataz said:


> I really don't think your steak house analogy works here. I think most people who go to a steak house know what they are getting. Now if they refused to serve him anything on their menu, say a salad and baked potato because he is a vegan that would be similar.


OK do they have the right to force a church to hold their ceremony or a preacher to marry them?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Legislated does not mean respect or all those same sex couples would not be facing the likes of some of the posts here.


And you think you should have the power, via the government, to FORCE everyone to think as you do? If I don't like short people should you have the power to force me to hire them because YOU think I'm being a 'naughty' person?

What other things do you think you should have the power to FORCE me to do? 

And as I said if you give this power to the government what happens if it suddenly goes the other way and starts forcing people *to* discriminate against a group of people?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I for on and all for laws pertaining to discrimination in business. I support that part of the USC.


What part of the USC gives the government the power to control transactions between two individuals?


----------



## keenataz

MJsLady said:


> OK do they have the right to force a church to hold their ceremony or a preacher to marry them?


 
Simple answer no. That is where my support for gay marriage ends. If you belong to a religion or church who will marry you if you are gay, great. But if not there are alternatives, I am assuming in the US there are civil cermonies.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> And you think you should have the power, via the government, to FORCE everyone to think as you do? If I don't like short people should you have the power to force me to hire them because YOU think I'm being a 'naughty' person?
> 
> What other things do you think you should have the power to FORCE me to do?
> 
> And as I said if you give this power to the government what happens if it suddenly goes the other way and starts forcing people *to* discriminate against a group of people?


I don't have the power. The USC does.


----------



## MJsLady

> Simple answer no. That is where my support for gay marriage ends. If you belong to a religion or church who will marry you if you are gay, great. But if not there are alternatives, I am assuming in the US there are civil ceremonies.


Agreed. 
Here is the rub though.
Everything a Christian does they are commanded to do as unto the Lord. 
We can't bake a cake for an immoral purpose, as unto the Lord who does not condone said purpose. Regardless of the purpose behind the desire for the cake.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Again. I did not say or imply that. I did say that I stand by this law. I don't stand by all laws.


Sure you did. You implied that because it was done "by law" it was fine and dandy. I know a lot of people who stood by the color laws. Does that mean those laws were right?

I look at all laws through the filter of the powers given to the government via the USC. I can find and no one so far has been able to show me anything in the USC which gives the government the power to control private transactions of legal private property. 

If the government passes a law which says left handed people can not use public buses that's not constitutional. If the government passes a law which says you can not refuse to sell your privately owned house to left handed people that is ALSO unconstitutional.

If you can point out to me where such a power is given to the government I'd love to see it.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Yes that is what courts of law are all about, deciding who said what and who the jury believes depending on the evidence.


You mean the same juries which give millions of dollars to someone who puts a cup of coffee between their legs and gets burned?


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> Agreed.
> Here is the rub though.
> Everything a Christian does they are commanded to do as unto the Lord.
> We can't bake a cake for an immoral purpose, as unto the Lord who does not condone said purpose. Regardless of the purpose behind the desire for the cake.


So don't. That however means to make sure you don't you have to ask every customer that you sell a cake to what it is for. I have no problem with that.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> You mean the same juries which give millions of dollars to someone who puts a cup of coffee between their legs and gets burned?


May not be a perfect system and may not always work. However I would far rather go with that system than no system.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Sure you did. You implied that because it was done "by law" it was fine and dandy. I know a lot of people who stood by the color laws. Does that mean those laws were right?
> 
> I look at all laws through the filter of the powers given to the government via the USC. I can find and no one so far has been able to show me anything in the USC which gives the government the power to control private transactions of legal private property.
> 
> If the government passes a law which says left handed people can not use public buses that's not constitutional. If the government passes a law which says you can not refuse to sell your privately owned house to left handed people that is ALSO unconstitutional.
> 
> If you can point out to me where such a power is given to the government I'd love to see it.


I did not imply but that would not back up your opinion on what you think I believe so it does not matter what I say.


----------



## keenataz

MJsLady said:


> Agreed.
> Here is the rub though.
> Everything a Christian does they are commanded to do as unto the Lord.
> We can't bake a cake for an immoral purpose, as unto the Lord who does not condone said purpose. Regardless of the purpose behind the desire for the cake.


 
I am not a Christian, personally not my thing. But I was brought up to respect the rights of others including Christians. So basically if I know if I am going to do something that will negatively impact their beliefs I avoid it if possible. Of course I expect the same.

I believe we would be better off if others did the same and didn't try to make headlines to support their views. Not finger pointing at anyone because it is done by all sides.

So I guess what I am saying if I were gay (i'm not) and for some reason I had to have some kind of business transaction with you and you told me you couldn't because of your sincere religious beliefs I would simply move on unless you were the only realistic alternative. Then I guess we would hopefully have some kind of dialogue and comeup with a solution


----------



## dixiegal62

watcher said:


> Time out here. Are you saying you think it was OK for the gays to force their lifestyle on the bakers or that you think the bakers were trying to force theirs on the gays?


 
I believe in this case the gay couple was trying to force their lifestyle on the baker, who imo had every right to refuse to bake the cake. I don't think any person has the right to force their beliefs ( no matter what those beliefs are ) on another person by trying to force them do something they believe is wrong.


----------



## Vash

keenataz said:


> So I guess what I am saying if I were gay (i'm not) and for some reason I had to have some kind of business transaction with you and you told me you couldn't because of your sincere religious beliefs I would simply move on unless you were the only realistic alternative. Then I guess we would hopefully have some kind of dialogue and comeup with a solution


Sounds good to me.


----------



## unregistered41671

painterswife said:


> Every time you use the word perversion you scream that you are heterosexual. Every time you get to say "beautiful wife" you are screaming that you are heterosexual. You get to say and do simple things every day to celebrate your marriage that screams your heterosexuality.


You may consider it screaming but one thing for sure, I would not go to court and try to make anyone do business with me *if* they did not want to for *any* reason. I would just go find someone else that wanted to do business with me. As far as the word "perversion", I am just calling that behavior, what it really is.


----------



## MJsLady

keenataz said:


> I am not a Christian, personally not my thing. But I was brought up to respect the rights of others including Christians. So basically if I know if I am going to do something that will negatively impact their beliefs I avoid it if possible. Of course I expect the same.
> 
> I believe we would be better off if others did the same and didn't try to make headlines to support their views. Not finger pointing at anyone because it is done by all sides.
> 
> So I guess what I am saying if I were gay (i'm not) and for some reason I had to have some kind of business transaction with you and you told me you couldn't because of your sincere religious beliefs I would simply move on unless you were the only realistic alternative. Then I guess we would hopefully have some kind of dialogue and comeup with a solution


Again I agree.


As to not knowing God addressed that as well. He says not to ask but if you find out cease the activity.
The example given is eating at a feast.


----------



## homstdr74

> Originally posted by *Yvonne's hubby*
> 
> According to who?


I'll answer that question when you answer the question in the following post that I asked you several pages ago and you refused to answer:



homstdr74 said:


> *Then you undoubtedly would like to explain exactly why the "laws" have been and are being changed* so that their entire context has been warped to mean something which they were never intended to define, rather than constructing an entirely new category for such alien thought processes.
> 
> *Can we also expect this with other laws, that the heartless will also change the laws about polygamy, incest, theft, assault, murder and etc. much as they have changed the laws against abortion and homosexuality?
> *
> *If you think not, why not?* What's so special about those or any other laws that have been on the books for millennia? After all, someone is being denied their freedoms and thus their "rights" by those Christian laws, and they would much rather that they didn't exist.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> So what! Does that give them the right to celebrate their spouse in public and the same sex couple can not. That is what was said when they told them to keep it private.


OK, so I understand you think highly of the celebration of emotional instability and short-lived tragic lives. That you cannot see why that "lifestyle" has been suppressed during the entire course of human events speaks volumes about you.

Look, traditionally differing sects of people have celebrated whatever their celebrations may entail with people of their own persuasion, which makes them happy. Out of respect for others they do not "crash" the traditional celebrations of other sects of people. If and when they do, they wind up in trouble and have a lot of explaining to do.....as you people are having to do at present. A *lot* of explaining, none of which is registering at all, with anyone but people who hold some sort of affection for that particular persuasion ( if you differ with this, read the first sentence of this paragraph).


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> OK, so I understand you think highly of the celebration of emotional instability and short-lived tragic lives. That you cannot see why that "lifestyle" has been suppressed during the entire course of human events speaks volumes about you.


I can't help but chuckle that there are people who believe that is true. Some would obviously be supervised to know how many of your fellow citizens are same sex couples well into their later years and have had or are in high positions in government , corporations and private business. Neither emotionally unstable or short lived. Luckily they made it past the younger years where bigots contributed to a society that caused so many young people to take their lives. I proud to see the change in this world and to know that those people are becoming the minority. It is really to bad that we have to legislate against such bigoted treatment but in this day and age we still do.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I can't help but chuckle that there are people who believe that is true. Some would obviously be supervised to know how many of your fellow citizens are same sex couples well into their later years and have had or are in high positions in government , corporations and private business. Neither emotionally unstable or short lived. Luckily they made it past the younger years where bigots contributed to a society that caused so many young people to take their lives. I proud to see the change in this world and to know that those people are becoming the minority. It is really to bad that we have to legislate against such bigoted treatment but in this day and age we still do.


 
People can hold any of the positions you named and not be emotionally stable, look at government officials!

My personal opinion is most gays may have something different genetically. I also feel that many different human traits are genetic and have to be learned to control.. ie. some people are born with bad temper and have to learn how to control their urges to fly off the handle, some people have a tendency to put on more weight and if they want to be in the norm they have to work harder at it than people who don't tend to gain. 

I say 'most' because I have seen examples where being gay was considered cool so they claimed to be gay. My daughters best friend's high school was one example of that. At one point almost every girl in her class suddenly became gay, this went on for about 2 years. Was it something in the water?

As for all the so called bigots who force people to take their own lives, I don't buy it. People take their own lives because of their own unhappiness and selfishness which only they can control. If other people's disapproval of them caused it your 'so called bigots' would be taking themselves out left and right. If you're not strong enough to stand up and fight for what you believe then that's your problem.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> I can't help but chuckle that there are people who believe that is true. Some would obviously be supervised to know how many of your fellow citizens are same sex couples well into their later years and have had or are in high positions in government , corporations and private business. Neither emotionally unstable or short lived. Luckily they made it past the younger years where bigots contributed to a society that caused so many young people to take their lives. I proud to see the change in this world and to know that those people are becoming the minority. It is really to bad that* we have to legislate against such* "bigoted" *treatment* but in this day and age we still do.


You can pass all the laws in the world but you cannot make people like people or activities they don't like, *even with force*.


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> You can pass all the laws in the world but you cannot make people like people or activities they don't like, *even with force*.


Very true. I dislike so much about religion and how people use it. I however don't have a problem with laws that protect your right to practice your religion as long as those practices do not impact others.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Very true. I dislike so much about religion and how people use it. I however don't have a problem with laws that protect your right to practice your religion as long as those practices do not impact others.


 
Yes I guess one could say my religious practices impact others.. I can list many other things I'm unwilling to do for others because of my faith:

Drive the get away car for someone robbing bank.
Help dispose of a body for a murderer.
Babysit the kids so an adulterer can spend the night in a Motel with their lover.
Help someone carry the booty they got while shoplifting.
Loan a car to a pedophile so he has a way to kidnap a child.
Be someone's lookout while they rape a lady.
Be someone's ride to an abortion clinic.

In every example I am keeping someone from doing what they want by not helping them. By your reasoning that makes me a bigot.


----------



## Wanda

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes I guess one could say my religious practices impact others.. I can list many other things I'm unwilling to do for others because of my faith:
> 
> Drive the get away car for someone robbing bank.
> Help dispose of a body for a murderer.
> Babysit the kids so an adulterer can spend the night in a Motel with their lover.
> Help someone carry the booty they got while shoplifting.
> Loan a car to a pedophile so he has a way to kidnap a child.
> Be someone's lookout while they rape a lady.
> Be someone's ride to an abortion clinic.
> 
> In every example I am keeping someone from doing what they want by not helping them. By your reasoning that makes me a bigot.



Morals and religion are not necessarily the same thing. You can have one or the other or both.


----------



## painterswife

Wanda said:


> Morals and religion are not necessarily the same thing. You can have one or the other or both.


Why is it that so many believe that you have to be religious to have morals?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Why is it that so many believe that you have to be religious to have morals?


 
Who said you did? For that matter who are you to decide what I can personally find morally or religiously objectionable?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Who said you did? For that matter who are you to decide what I can personally find morally or religiously objectionable?


I said that many believe that you need to have religion to have morals. I never said I get to decide what you find morally or or religiously objectionable. I believe you get to decide for yourself.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I said that many believe that you need to have religion to have morals. I never said I get to decide what you find morally or or religiously objectionable. I believe you get to decide for yourself.


 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought your stance was the Government got to decided that for us.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought your stance was the Government got to decided that for us.


Wrong again.

No. The people decide. The people are the government. The people take it to courts or voting booth to effect change.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> No. The people decide. The people are the government. The people take it to courts or voting booth to effect change.


 
If other people are deciding for you, that is not getting to decide for yourself.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> If other people are deciding for you, that is not getting to decide for yourself.


Nope- you still get to decide for yourself. You also get to decide whether standing up for what you believe in is worth the potential cost. This country was founded by and has been fought for by many who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs. Many of the things we take for granted exist because people stood up for what they believe in risking personal freedom and even their lives. Freedom really isn't free.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I said that many believe that you need to have religion to have morals. I never said I get to decide what you find morally or or religiously objectionable. I believe you get to decide for yourself.





painterswife said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> No. The people decide. The people are the government. The people take it to courts or voting booth to effect change.


You believe I have the right to decide unless other people tell me I can't.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> You believe I have the right to decide unless other people tell me I can't.


Nope. You decide for yourself. However you face the laws and consequences if the people have decided that they don't agree with you. Just like if you decide that murder is fine with you you will be tried because the laws say otherwise.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> Nope- you still get to decide for yourself. You also get to decide whether standing up for what you believe in is worth the potential cost. This country was founded by and has been fought for by many who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs. Many of the things we take for granted exist because people stood up for what they believe in risking personal freedom and even their lives. Freedom really isn't free.





painterswife said:


> Nope. You decide for yourself. However you face the laws and consequences if the people have decided that they don't agree with you. Just like if you decide that murder is fine with you you will be tried because the laws say otherwise.


Wow the only thing that comes to mind with these two answers is this quote.

"There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it."


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Wow the only thing that comes to mind with these two answers is this quote.
> 
> "There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it."


Yes, no matter how many times we say it or how many ways, you want to cling to the idea that we think the government and not each individual is responsible for their own freedom.


----------



## where I want to

Wanda said:


> Morals and religion are not necessarily the same thing. You can have one or the other or both.


But a whole lot of people have neither. And don't notice the absence.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Wow the only thing that comes to mind with these two answers is this quote.
> 
> "There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it."


It's a nice quote but meaningless unless you are willing to sacrifice something for that liberty. While I disagree with the bakery owners I admire their willingness to potentially sacrifice their business in support of their beliefs.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> No. The people decide. The people are the government. The people take it to courts or voting booth to effect change.


:rotfl:Vote early and often!!!!!!


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> Nope. You decide for yourself. However you face the laws and consequences if the people have decided that they don't agree with you. Just like if you decide that murder is fine with you you will be tried because the laws say otherwise.


And why does the law say otherwise? Why should one law be struck down because it is "Christian" but not another? Seems to me you have a fine chance to do away with the entire Decalogue----you've already done in most of it, why not finish the job?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Yes, no matter how many times we say it or how many ways, you want to cling to the idea that we think the government and not each individual is responsible for their own freedom.


 
Maybe because you keep telling us the law says we can't decide who we sell to  its not me who needs to make up my mind. I have always said I would sell to whomever I please.


----------



## farmrbrown

That's why I said what I said in my first post.
In answering the OP's question "Do you believe in *personal* freedom?" I said most people would not admit that they really don't.
They believe that the collective, as a whole, should decide, what we call society or government.
Oh, you can exceed those set limits if you like, but then your personal freedom will end with a collective thump.
The problem is, at some point, an individual will find that the collective whole has passed a personally immoral law and wants to enforce it upon him.
Only then will you get the OP's answer to what people really believe.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Maybe because you keep telling us the law says we can't decide who we sell to  its not me who needs to make up my mind. I have always said I would sell to whomever I please.


You can try to twist my words but I did not say that.

You can't discriminate and be free from possible problems. You can do what ever you want, sell to who ever you want. Not sell to whom ever you want. Those that you discriminate can do what they want. If they want they can sue you, if they can choose to.

Sort of like your mother saying no you can't hit your sister. You choose whether to hit your sister and wait and see what your mother does.

Maybe it would be like choosing to not adhere to one of the 10 commandments and waiting to see what your God does.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> That's why I said what I said in my first post.
> In answering the OP's question "Do you believe in *personal* freedom?" I said most people would not admit that they really don't.
> They believe that the collective, as a whole, should decide, what we call society or government.
> Oh, you can exceed those set limits if you like, but then your personal freedom will end with a collective thump.
> The problem is, at some point, an individual will find that the collective whole has passed a personally immoral law and wants to enforce it upon him.
> Only then will you get the OP's answer to what people really believe.


Sounds like you think personal freedom means you decide to do what ever you want and it does not matter what the rest of the world thinks about it. I don't believe that was ever a reality whether you believe in a higher power or not.


----------



## homstdr74

farmrbrown said:


> That's why I said what I said in my first post.
> In answering the OP's question "Do you believe in *personal* freedom?" I said most people would not admit that they really don't.
> They believe that the collective, as a whole, should decide, what we call society or government.
> Oh, you can exceed those set limits if you like, but then your personal freedom will end with a collective thump.
> The problem is, at some point, an individual will find that the collective whole has passed a personally immoral law and wants to enforce it upon him.
> Only then will you get the OP's answer to what people really believe.


It really should surprise no one that a website set up for rural people should have so many people on it opposed to urban tampering with people's lives. But there are, apparently, some who have the 'idea' of homesteading yet cling to urbanity. 

Jefferson's dream of a Nation of yeoman farmers was correct. He believed that urbanity was the bane of human existence. Time has proven his vision to have been the best for actually living the concept of American freedom.


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> It really should surprise no one that a website set up for rural people should have so many people on it opposed to urban tampering with people's lives. But there are, apparently, some who have the 'idea' of homesteading yet cling to urbanity.
> 
> Jefferson's dream of a Nation of yeoman farmers was correct. He believed that urbanity was the bane of human existence. Time has proven his vision to have been the best for actually living the concept of American freedom.


When did homesteading mean it is fine to discriminate and when did believing that discrimination is wrong become urban?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Sounds like you think personal freedom means you decide to do what ever you want and it does not matter what the rest of the world thinks about it. I don't believe that was ever a reality whether you believe in a higher power or not.


Exactly! Now your getting it! I'll worship the way I want, decide right from wrong for myself and I'll live with my choices. I could care less what the rest of the world thinks about it, I'm not living my life to please any other human. Doesn't matter to me one bit if you believe it was ever a reality or not. It's my God given right.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Exactly! Now your getting it! I'll worship the way I want, decide right from wrong for myself and I'll live with my choices. I could care less what the rest of the world thinks about it, I'm not living my life to please any other human. Doesn't matter to me one bit if you believe it was ever a reality or not. It's my God given right.


You may believe that you do just as you like but I don't believe it. I don't know of one person in this world that dose not make choices based on the laws and the possible repercussions. Now I can believe that you don't live your life to please any other human.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Very true. I dislike so much about religion and how people use it. I however don't have a problem with laws that protect your right to practice your religion *as long as those practices do not impact others.*




I see that the restrictions go farther than harming others. It must not even _impact_ another person. A lofty goal to be sure. It's hard to go thru life with no impact whatsoever, for anyone.






painterswife said:


> You can try to twist my words but I did not say that.
> 
> You can't discriminate and be free from possible problems. You can do what ever you want, sell to who ever you want. Not sell to whom ever you want. Those that you discriminate can do what they want. If they want they can sue you, if they can choose to.
> 
> Sort of like your mother saying no you can't hit your sister. You choose whether to hit your sister and wait and see what your mother does.
> 
> Maybe it would be like choosing to not adhere to one of the 10 commandments and waiting to see what your God does.




An interesting point, and a good one, although when the Almighty is brought in to the discussion, His views are subject to dismissal by some, I've noticed.
But I thought of that after an earlier post of mine.
If I adhere to His laws, than I guess I've abdicated my personal freedom as well, to an extent.






painterswife said:


> Sounds like you think personal freedom means you decide to do what ever you want and it does not matter what the rest of the world thinks about it. I don't believe that was ever a reality whether you believe in a higher power or not.



And that would be an incorrect assumption on your part. I'd be very surprised if you could dig up a post by me where I actually said as much.
I did say I would ignore what the rest of the world wanted me to follow if it was immoral.
Of course that brings us back to the quandary posted above.:hrm:

And why in the world does a question of rights or freedom always degenerate to a false choice? I've noticed this all over the place, not just here and now.
I guess it's human nature, because it's so prevalent.

You HAVE to vote Democrat or Republican, no other option is permissible.
You either vote for the most popular opponent or you automatically have elected the incumbent.
No independent thought or different opinion is possible but the two choices "we" say that you have to make.
:nono::shrug:

If one advocates personal freedom, it does not automatically mean they want or advocate to do harm to others.
That is a false choice.
I can choose to be free and still do the right thing, still respect others, still protect the weak, and promote the good.

Is that a possibility that just doesn't occur to some people?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I don't know of one person in this world that dose not make choices based on the laws and the possible repercussions.
> QUOTE]
> 
> LOL you may believe you know what every person in this whole wide world considers when making choices on how to live their life but I don't.:hysterical:


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> I see that the restrictions go farther than harming others. It must not even _impact_ another person. A lofty goal to be sure. It's hard to go thru life with no impact whatsoever, for anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting point, and a good one, although when the Almighty is brought in to the discussion, His views are subject to dismissal by some, I've noticed.
> But I thought of that after an earlier post of mine.
> If I adhere to His laws, than I guess I've abdicated my personal freedom as well, to an extent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be an incorrect assumption on your part. I'd be very surprised if you could dig up a post by me where I actually said as much.
> I did say I would ignore what the rest of the world wanted me to follow if it was immoral.
> Of course that brings us back to the quandary posted above.:hrm:
> 
> And why in the world does a question of rights or freedom always degenerate to a false choice? I've noticed this all over the place, not just here and now.
> I guess it's human nature, because it's so prevalent.
> 
> You HAVE to vote Democrat or Republican, no other option is permissible.
> You either vote for the most popular opponent or you automatically have elected the incumbent.
> No independent thought or different opinion is possible but the two choices "we" say that you have to make.
> :nono::shrug:
> 
> If one advocates personal freedom, it does not automatically mean they want or advocate to do harm to others.
> That is a false choice.
> I can choose to be free and still do the right thing, still respect others, still protect the weak, and promote the good.
> 
> Is that a possibility that just doesn't occur to some people?


Thank-you for answering my post is such a thoughtful way. Clarification always makes for a better understanding of others. You gave me some good things to think about.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> May not be a perfect system and may not always work. However I would far rather go with that system than no system.


I'm sure a lot of white guys from the old South would agree with you.


----------



## dixiegal62

farmrbrown said:


> If one advocates personal freedom, it does not automatically mean they want or advocate to do harm to others.
> That is a false choice.
> I can choose to be free and still do the right thing, still respect others, still protect the weak, and promote the good.
> 
> Is that a possibility that just doesn't occur to some people?


:clap:


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I did not imply but that would not back up your opinion on what you think I believe so it does not matter what I say.


Then what did you mean when you wrote:

_You don't have to buy it but you can not by law, discriminate against me when I want to if I chose to sue.

_Seems to me you were implying it was ok for the government to take a power which they do not the right to under the USC as long as it was put into a law.


----------



## watcher

Wanda said:


> Morals and religion are not necessarily the same thing. You can have one or the other or both.


But you can't act on either if you are in business because that would be discrimination!


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Why is it that so many believe that you have to be religious to have morals?


That comes down to how you define "religion". If you define it as the system which you use to live your life then any moral code is a religion.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> You can try to twist my words but I did not say that.
> 
> You can't discriminate and be free from possible problems. You can do what ever you want, sell to who ever you want. Not sell to whom ever you want. Those that you discriminate can do what they want. If they want they can sue you, if they can choose to.


Again I ask you to show me where the government is given the power to make such a law.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Again I ask you to show me where the government is given the power to make such a law.


Those that have, have been told they are not correct according to you. I won't waste my time doing the same.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Those that have, have been told they are not correct according to you. *I won't waste my time doing the same.*


Copout.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Copout.


Such flattery.


----------



## Evons hubby

The ninth and fourteenth amendments. They havent changed since I first told you.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> When did homesteading mean it is fine to discriminate and when did believing that discrimination is wrong become urban?


Iâll overlook the obvious diversionary red herring aspect of your post and state that most traditional rural people are discriminating enough to know right from wrong and many urbanites do not have the same capabilities.


----------



## Paumon

painterswife said:


> When did homesteading mean it is fine to discriminate and when did believing that discrimination is wrong become urban?


It doesn't in either case. Narrow things down a bit and you'll see that homesteaders who advocate for discrimination are probably like a single drop of water in a big lake. The total number of people who are members on this forum are just a very tiny fraction representing homesteaders, farmers or rural dwellers in the entire nation. There's 45,772 members of the forum but in all of USA there's 50 million homesteading, farming or rural dwellers. So only a small fraction of the nation's homesteaders are represented on this forum. A fraction of a fraction. And of the 45,772 forum members there's been .... what? .... less than 20 people? .... who've responded to this topic advocating for discrimination. And who knows how many of them really are homesteaders and who really are urban dwellers?

I think it's always important to remember (and I do have to keep reminding myself) that the small member population of this forum are NOT representative of all people in America and that not all members of the forum are the same birds of the same feather. There's a lot of disparity even amongst all the forum members.


----------



## Wanda

Paumon said:


> It doesn't in either case. Narrow things down a bit and you'll see that homesteaders who advocate for discrimination are probably like a single drop of water in a big lake. The total number of people who are members on this forum are just a very tiny fraction representing homesteaders, farmers or rural dwellers in the entire nation. There's 45,772 members of the forum but in all of USA there's 50 million homesteading, farming or rural dwellers. So only a small fraction of the nation's homesteaders are represented on this forum. A fraction of a fraction. And of the 45,772 forum members there's been .... what? .... less than 20 people? .... who've responded to this topic advocating for discrimination. And who knows how many of them really are homesteaders and who really are urban dwellers?
> 
> I think it's always important to remember (and I do have to keep reminding myself) that the small member population of this forum are NOT representative of all people in America and that not all members of the forum are the same birds of the same feather. There's a lot of disparity even amongst all the forum members.



Only quoted so I can say ''I liked it'' again.


----------



## where I want to

The people who are dangerous to freedom are the holier-than-thou control freaks. That has nothing to do with religion as more than enough athiests and agnostics are in that catagory. Recent history is full of examples of horrendous abuse in the name of social engineering from athiests. 
Religion can offer centuries of serious thought about behavior that protects communities from self-destructive behavior. Just because it can be misused by controlling people does not mean it is bad. Bad people use any tool at hand, including imposing laws or abusing people on forums.
Self examination should be the first thing that occurs in all debates rather than insults.


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> It doesn't in either case. Narrow things down a bit and you'll see that homesteaders who advocate for discrimination are probably like a single drop of water in a big lake. The total number of people who are members on this forum are just a very tiny fraction representing homesteaders, farmers or rural dwellers in the entire nation. There's 45,772 members of the forum but in all of USA there's 50 million homesteading, farming or rural dwellers. So only a small fraction of the nation's homesteaders are represented on this forum. A fraction of a fraction. And of the 45,772 forum members there's been .... what? .... less than 20 people? .... who've responded to this topic advocating for discrimination. And who knows how many of them really are homesteaders and who really are urban dwellers?
> 
> I think it's always important to remember (and I do have to keep reminding myself) that the small member population of this forum are NOT representative of all people in America and that not all members of the forum are the same birds of the same feather. There's a lot of disparity even amongst all the forum members.


Point out exactly which person on this thread is un-American enough to advocate victimizing anyone, for any reason. You canât, yet you are willing to advocate for witch-hunting laws that would satisfy your need to exact revenge for those prejudices against you and your lifestyle that you have assumed all your life. Every phrase, every gesture, every look has become a bias against you and your lifestyle. What is the difference between those fantasies and the people you hate so much?

You have exactly the same needs of which you accuse your imagined persecutors. You need to know there is someone inferior to you, someone you can look down upon because that helps you to imagine your superiority. Itâs a failing all too common, and one that could be squelched, but only individually, not collectively, because if you try to establish false laws about private matters, they will always backfire big time.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> It doesn't in either case. Narrow things down a bit and you'll see that homesteaders who advocate for discrimination are probably like a single drop of water in a big lake. The total number of people who are members on this forum are just a very tiny fraction representing homesteaders, farmers or rural dwellers in the entire nation. There's 45,772 members of the forum but in all of USA there's 50 million homesteading, farming or rural dwellers. So only a small fraction of the nation's homesteaders are represented on this forum. A fraction of a fraction. And of the 45,772 forum members there's been .... what? ....* less than 20 people? .... who've responded to this topic advocating for discrimination. *And who knows how many of them really are homesteaders and who really are urban dwellers?
> 
> I think it's always important to remember (and I do have to keep reminding myself) that the small member population of this forum are NOT representative of all people in America and that not all members of the forum are the same birds of the same feather. There's a lot of disparity even amongst all the forum members.


Now you're creating a False Dilemma.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Those that have, have been told they are not correct according to you. I won't waste my time doing the same.


The moon is made of green cheese my proof is you just have to take look at it and take my word.

Its the same thing, because the only "proof" that has been given is that the federal government has been given the power to prevent states from discriminating. There's not a single thing in it which says the government has the right to use force to prevent an individual from doing it.

As I posted to them the "proof" they offer very clearly and specifically says "State". It does not say "people". If you read the US when it refers to state governments it says "State" when it refers to individuals it says "people".


----------



## Paumon

homstdr74 said:


> Originally Posted by *Paumon*
> _It doesn't in either case. Narrow things down a bit and you'll see that homesteaders who advocate for discrimination are probably like a single drop of water in a big lake. The total number of people who are members on this forum are just a very tiny fraction representing homesteaders, farmers or rural dwellers in the entire nation. There's 45,772 members of the forum but in all of USA there's 50 million homesteading, farming or rural dwellers. So only a small fraction of the nation's homesteaders are represented on this forum. A fraction of a fraction. And of the 45,772 forum members there's been .... what? .... less than 20 people? .... who've responded to this topic advocating for discrimination. And who knows how many of them really are homesteaders and who really are urban dwellers?_
> 
> _I think it's always important to remember (and I do have to keep reminding myself) that the small member population of this forum are NOT representative of all people in America and that not all members of the forum are the same birds of the same feather. There's a lot of disparity even amongst all the forum members._
> 
> 
> 
> Point out exactly which person on this thread is un-American enough to advocate victimizing anyone, for any reason. You can&#8217;t, yet you are willing to advocate for witch-hunting laws that would satisfy your need to exact revenge for those prejudices against you and your lifestyle that you have assumed all your life. Every phrase, every gesture, every look has become a bias against you and your lifestyle. What is the difference between those fantasies and the people you hate so much?
> 
> You have exactly the same needs of which you accuse your imagined persecutors. You need to know there is someone inferior to you, someone you can look down upon because that helps you to imagine your superiority. It&#8217;s a failing all too common, and one that could be squelched, but only individually, not collectively, because if you try to establish false laws about private matters, they will always backfire big time.
Click to expand...

What ??? I don't understand what you just said. I am truly puzzled. None of your post makes sense to me other than it sounds like imagined conclusions that you have formed about a stranger you don't know. How do any of the personal accusations you have just directed at me relate to what I was saying in my post about how the overall population of non-discriminating homesteaders in America are not represented by all the members of this forum?

I see that a few people have "liked" your post so apparently they were able to read between the lines and interpret your intent so if you can't explain your post then perhaps one of them can interpret it for me. 




Vash said:


> Now you're creating a False Dilemma.


Poor simple minded little old me, I had to look up the definition of false dilemma to see what it means. Okie dokie then, if you see it that way I'll just have to take your word for it that that's how you see it. For your pleasure here's a few more scenarios and intellectual buzz words for you to throw around: http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/falsedilterm.htm 

Hey, I have a great idea. You don't seem to be able to contribute anything more meaty to chew on except very short one liner hit and run posts but you're apparently good at reading between the lines of other people's posts so maybe you can interpret homstdr74's post for me. :heh:


----------



## bowdonkey

I wish all you folks would have been down to Current Events for the fishing license debate a couple months back. It would have been lots of fun.:buds:


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Hey, I have a great idea. You don't seem to be able to contribute anything more meaty to chew on except very short one liner hit and run posts but you're apparently good at reading between the lines of other people's posts so maybe you can interpret homstdr74's post for me. :heh:


He said you need to stop throwing stones in a glass house.





BTW - 



Paumon said:


> You don't seem to be able to contribute anything more meaty to chew on except very short one liner hit and run posts


Appeal to hypocrisy. :nana:

ESPECIALLY, since the last thing you posted in at least 5 pages was a false allegation that people posting in this thread are actually advocating discrimination.
Pot meet kettle...again.


There are so many fallacies flying back and forth in this thread that there really isn't much left to discuss. Everything has been hashed, rehashed, digested, regurgitated and rehashed again. :catfight:


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> He said you need to stop throwing stones in a glass house.
> 
> BTW -
> 
> Appeal to hypocrisy. :nana:
> 
> ESPECIALLY, since the last thing you posted in at least 5 pages was a false allegation that people posting in this thread are actually advocating discrimination.
> Pot meet kettle...again.
> 
> 
> *There are so many fallacies flying back and forth in this thread that there really isn't much left to discuss. Everything has been hashed, rehashed, digested, regurgitated and rehashed again.* :catfight:


I agree with the bolded part only. :angel:


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> I agree with the bolded part only. :angel:


:trollface :buds:


----------



## Paumon

Wanda said:


> Only quoted so I can say ''I liked it'' again.


Thanks. I'm gratified to see that somebody actually comprehended that post. :thumb:


----------



## Wanda

bowdonkey said:


> I wish all you folks would have been down to Current Events for the fishing license debate a couple months back. It would have been lots of fun.:buds:



I was and kept it bumped up for you!


----------



## watcher

I thought of somethings while I was working this morning. All of you who claim that the 14 amendment is where the government gets the power to force individuals to not discriminate I have something for you to ponder.

First off your reading of the 14th and finding it applies to individuals is like the anti-gun people who read the 2nd and finding it applies to the State.

Second, do the other amendments which clearly limit the power of the government also apply to individuals? 

Just look at the 1st. It clearly says "Congress shall make no law. . ", just as the 14th says "No State shall make . . . any law. . " Therefore using your logic doesn't that mean the individual not have the right to prevent a group of people wanting to pray on their property from doing so if he does not want them there? Doesn't that mean he does not have the right to stop members of the press from climbing his fences to take his picture for a news story?


----------



## dixiegal62

watcher said:


> Just look at the 1st. It clearly says "Congress shall make no law. . ", just as the 14th says "No State shall make . . . any law. . " Therefore using your logic doesn't that mean the individual not have the right to prevent a group of people wanting to pray on their property from doing so if he does not want them there? Doesn't that mean he does not have the right to stop members of the press from climbing his fences to take his picture for a news story?


Seems to be the case now, wasn't it the OWS crowd that was pretty much allowed to go on anyone's private property and do whatever they pleased?


----------



## unregistered353870

I discriminate all the time in my business...against people who don't want to pay what I want to charge. But sometimes I feel generous and give people a deal. Should I not have that right? Am I discriminating against poor people?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I thought of somethings while I was working this morning. All of you who claim that the 14 amendment is where the government gets the power to force individuals to not discriminate I have something for you to ponder.
> 
> First off your reading of the 14th and finding it applies to individuals is like the anti-gun people who read the 2nd and finding it applies to the State.
> 
> Second, do the other amendments which clearly limit the power of the government also apply to individuals?
> 
> Just look at the 1st. It clearly says "Congress shall make no law. . ", just as the 14th says "No State shall make . . . any law. . " Therefore using your logic doesn't that mean the individual not have the right to prevent a group of people wanting to pray on their property from doing so if he does not want them there? Doesn't that mean he does not have the right to stop members of the press from climbing his fences to take his picture for a news story?


You still don't seem to "get" the amendments meaning. The forteenth defines who are citizens and that the states cannot pass laws that favor one group of citizens over another.
The ninth points out that we the people have rights exceeding those named directly by our constitution. 
The tenth makes it plain that the federal government was granted a few specific powers and the states and th people reserve all other powers to themselves.
One of those rights is to be able to buy a cake that is for sale if one has the price as marked.


----------



## homstdr74

[No message]


----------



## homstdr74

jtbrandt said:


> I discriminate all the time in my business...against people who don't want to pay what I want to charge. But sometimes I feel generous and give people a deal. Should I not have that right? Am I discriminating against poor people?


Discrimination is subjective, at least as it relates to individuals. If you do not want to sell to someone who refuses to pay, that is your right. If you want to make a deal with someone or give something to someone, that is your right. If you refuse to sell to a customer for any reason, that is your right as a businessman. If you do so out of religious conviction, that is also your right.

But those who claim that your business decisions discriminate against them do not have a right to do so; that they might assert that they do proves that they have no problem discriminating against you because they cannot have their own way.


----------



## Paumon

I'm beginning to think that Watcher doesn't understand there's a difference between private and public.


----------



## homstdr74

Government property is public. Administration buildings, city sidewalks, streets, public parks, anything OWNED by some government, be it City, County, State, or Federal.

All else is private---property owned by the citizens belongs to those citizens (who, yes, pay property taxes); businesses owned by the citizens belongs to those individual citizens (who, yes, pay business taxes).

It's like this: Joe has a butcher shop. His family has owned that shop for 150 years, and he is but the latest in the family to take up the business. His shop is his own, it is a private business on private property. He can sell to the public, which comes into his store from the sidewalk public property outside his door. Or he can tell some obnoxious jerk to go to H if he bothers him or his business. 

Jane works for the County government in the County Courthouse. She works in a public place that is property owned by the taxpayers of the County. She had better not tell anyone to go to H, rather she should call the Sheriff's department to deal with troublemakers.


----------



## JeffreyD

Should an artist that specializes in marble sculptures be forced to sell one of his works to someone that tells him as soon as he gets it home, he's going to destroy it with a hammer? 

Baking is an art form!


----------



## Paumon

That's a funny simile Jeffrey. You do know what happens to cakes after they get baked don't you? They get hacked to pieces then wolfed down and in the steaming end they don't look remotely like any kind of art form. The baker who bakes the cake knows it too.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> That's a funny simile Jeffrey. You do know what happens to cakes after they get baked don't you? They get hacked to pieces then wolfed down and in the steaming end they don't look remotely like any kind of art form. The baker who bakes the cake knows it too.


 
There are many forms of art that get destroyed. Sidewalk art comes to mind. I agree baking and cooking are both art forms. 

I also feel like I've said before that a wedding cake isn't off the shelf it's a contract. Way different than a person going into a bakery and buying already made cupcakes and doughnuts. A business owner isn't under obligation to accept every contract that comes his or her way.


----------



## beowoulf90

Paumon said:


> It doesn't in either case. Narrow things down a bit and you'll see that homesteaders who advocate for discrimination are probably like a single drop of water in a big lake. The total number of people who are members on this forum are just a very tiny fraction representing homesteaders, farmers or rural dwellers in the entire nation. There's 45,772 members of the forum but in all of USA there's 50 million homesteading, farming or rural dwellers. So only a small fraction of the nation's homesteaders are represented on this forum. A fraction of a fraction. And of the 45,772 forum members there's been .... what? .... less than 20 people? .... who've responded to this topic advocating for discrimination. And who knows how many of them really are homesteaders and who really are urban dwellers?
> 
> I think it's always important to remember (and I do have to keep reminding myself) that the small member population of this forum are NOT representative of all people in America and that not all members of the forum are the same birds of the same feather. There's a lot of disparity even amongst all the forum members.



Well it's obvious you don't understand Freedom and the Constitution..

No one here is advocating discrimination.. All they are saying is that being Free, they have the right to discriminate, like it or not!

But I wouldn't expect some to understand that..

One thing is for certain.. If you don't agree with liberalism/socialism/communism in some form, you are called a racist, and hate monger, discriminatory etc.. 

ALL FALSE FLAGS made to bully or coerce others to toe the liberal line..

What a joke, because it's backfiring.. 

Some will never understand Freedom!


----------



## unregistered353870

For the record (as if anyone cares) I have no problem with homosexuals and I would even make a cake for a gay wedding if I knew how to make cakes, but I fully support the right of individuals to choose who they will do business with.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> That's a funny simile Jeffrey. You do know what happens to cakes after they get baked don't you? They get hacked to pieces then wolfed down and in the steaming end they don't look remotely like any kind of art form. The baker who bakes the cake knows it too.


_Destroying_ a marble sculpture ...

_Eating_ a cake ...



Yeah, that's the same thing ... :hohum:


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> That's a funny simile Jeffrey. You do know what happens to cakes after they get baked don't you? They get hacked to pieces then wolfed down and in the steaming end they don't look remotely like any kind of art form. The baker who bakes the cake knows it too.


Not all baked goods are consumed! I honestly don't know anyone who "hacks a cake to peices" or what the "steaming end" means. It seems desperate!


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> That's a funny simile Jeffrey. You do know what happens to cakes after they get baked don't you? They get hacked to pieces then wolfed down and in the steaming end they don't look remotely like any kind of art form. The baker who bakes the cake knows it too.





JeffreyD said:


> Not all baked goods are consumed! I honestly don't know anyone who "hacks a cake to peices" or what the "steaming end" means. It seems desperate!


 
Sounds like things get violent at Paumon's dinner table.:viking::run:


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You still don't seem to "get" the amendments meaning. The forteenth defines who are citizens and that the states cannot pass laws that favor one group of citizens over another.
> The ninth points out that we the people have rights exceeding those named directly by our constitution.
> The tenth makes it plain that the federal government was granted a few specific powers and the states and th people reserve all other powers to
> themselves.


All the above is correct.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> YOne of those rights is to be able to buy a cake that is for sale if one has the price as marked.


This is where there is a problem. You DO NOT have any *right *to ANYTHING which must be provided to you by someone else. I have the freedom to offer a cake for sale and I have the freedom to decide whom I will or will not sell to because until its sold its *MY PROPERTY* and there's where "rights come into the mix. You have constitutional guaranteed right to your property and therefore the government can't just come along and demand you give, sell or trade it to whoever it demands over your wishes. This is stated in the 5th and 14th amendments (i.e. due process) and supported by the 3rd and 4th with their limits on government actions affecting personal property.

Now do you "get" it?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> I'm beginning to think that Watcher doesn't understand there's a difference between private and public.


Public, government owned. Private, not owned by the government.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> Public, government owned. Private, not owned by the government.


No. Public does not mean government owned, public means "all the people". Everyone is included, nobody is excluded because public means everyone. So if a person is operating a business that is advertised as open for business to the public it is open to everyone regardless of the business operator's personal or private feelings about customers. 

Private is the opposite, it means individual, exclusive, selective. A private business is one that deals only with a selected elite individual or group, exclusive of the public. If a person is operating a private business it is not open to the public and it must be advertised or otherwise made known in advance who will be eligible as a customer for the private business operator.


----------



## dixiegal62

Wait a sec, a private business is owned by an individual and sometimes maybe more than one person, say a family business.... your describing a private club


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> Wait a sec, a private business is owned by an individual and sometimes maybe more than one person, say a family business.... your describing a private club


You're talking about a privately owned company versus a publicly owned company but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the business operator's customer base - private customers versus public customers.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> If a person is operating a private business it is not open to the public and *it must be advertised or otherwise made known in advance who will be eligible as a customer for the private business operator.*


According to what?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> No. Public does not mean government owned, public means "all the people". Everyone is included, nobody is excluded because public means everyone. So if a person is operating a business that is advertised as open for business to the public it is open to everyone regardless of the business operator's personal or private feelings about customers.
> 
> Private is the opposite, it means individual, exclusive, selective. A private business is one that deals only with a selected elite individual or group, exclusive of the public. If a person is operating a private business it is not open to the public and it must be advertised or otherwise made known in advance who will be eligible as a customer for the private business operator.


Ah so public means government *controlled* but not owned. Therefore the government can FORCE you to relinquish your PRIVATE property when you do not want to let it go without the due process of law as required under the constitution. Is that what you mean?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> You're talking about a privately owned company versus a publicly owned company but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the business operator's customer base - private customers versus public customers.


But who owns the property inside that business? Is it public property or is it private property? If its public the the government has the full power to demand it be sold as it requires. If its private property then that pesky constitution with its limits on government power over private property gums up the works.


----------



## Paumon

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html

http://urbanext.illinois.edu/lcr/propertyrights.cfm

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution


----------



## homstdr74

watcher said:


> Ah so public means government *controlled* but not owned. Therefore the government can FORCE you to relinquish your PRIVATE property when you do not want to let it go without the due process of law as required under the constitution. Is that what you mean?


Actually, if I'm not mistaken, that's the definition of fascism. 

"it (fascism) differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems."

Consider Friederich Krupp AG; Volkswagen, Bayer, Standard Oil, Ford, IBM, Chase Bank, etc. All active under the Nazis and their "regulations". So, as long as you kowtow to whoever is in charge and obey their "laws" (remember that the Nazis usurped the German constitution and made their own "laws"), why then everything was OK.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> Ah so public means government *controlled* but not owned. Therefore the government can FORCE you to relinquish your PRIVATE property when you do not want to let it go without the due process of law as required under the constitution. Is that what you mean?





watcher said:


> But who owns the property inside that business? Is it public property or is it private property? If its public the the government has the full power to demand it be sold as it requires. If its private property then that pesky constitution with its limits on government power over private property gums up the works.


Nope. Please try to stay on track. That's not what I said, not what I mean and not what I'm discussing. I'm not the slightest bit interested in discussing property or property rights or how your government deals with you in regards to your property. I was talking about customers and how they are dealt with privately or publicly. Customers are not your property to be dealt with whichever way you see fit.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html
> 
> http://urbanext.illinois.edu/lcr/propertyrights.cfm
> 
> http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution



http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


----------



## watcher

homstdr74 said:


> Actually, if I'm not mistaken, that's the definition of fascism.


DING. . .give the man a cigggarrr.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Nope. Please try to stay on track. That's not what I said, not what I mean and not what I'm discussing. I'm not the slightest bit interested in discussing property or property rights or how your government deals with you in regards to your property. I was talking about customers and how they are dealt with privately or publicly. Customers are not your property to be dealt with whichever way you see fit.


I am staying on track. Go back to the first post and you'll see the following question:
_
Where does the government get the power to tell a private citizen how to run their business?_

No matter if its your "public business" or your "private business" the *FACT* is the goods and/or services provided by that business is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The constitution limits the power of the government to control private property, see the amendments I referenced.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> You're talking about a privately owned company versus a publicly owned company but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the business operator's customer base - private customers versus public customers.


Never mind the spinning is giving me a headache.


----------



## dixiegal62

Perhaps Paumon would prefer we handle it like her country does. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Perhaps Paumon would prefer we handle it like her country does. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html


It is treated as a hate crime in Canada and they face the full force of the law.


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> Perhaps Paumon would prefer we handle it like her country does. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html


It says right there the police investigated it as a hate crime. I think that treating it as a hate crime was the proper thing to do. If the same thing happened in your country I would think the proper thing to do would be to treat it as a hate crime.

Apparently you think that is the wrong way to deal with it. Are you suggesting otherwise, that it should be ignored and pretend it doesn't happen and let hatred and racism continue?


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> I am staying on track. Go back to the first post and you'll see the following question:
> 
> _*Where does the government get the power to tell a private citizen how to run their business?*_
> 
> No matter if its your "public business" or your "private business" the *FACT* is the goods and/or services provided by that business is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The constitution limits the power of the government to control private property, see the amendments I referenced.


_*Where does the government get the power to tell a private citizen how to run their business?*_

The governments get their power from the public and they enforce the power granted to them by the public to tell the private citizen how to run his business when the private citizen has been using his business to abuse the public (the customers).

Why is that so hard for you to understand?


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> It says right there the police investigated it as a hate crime. I think that treating it as a hate crime was the proper thing to do. If the same thing happened in your country I would think the proper thing to do would be to treat it as a hate crime.
> 
> Apparently you think that is the wrong way to deal with it. Are you suggesting otherwise, that it should be ignored and pretend it doesn't happen and let hatred and racism continue?


 
Point is it still happens and in a country you have admitted you feel is morally superior. I would hope you spend as much energy pointing out the discrimination in your own backyard as you do in our yard.

Putting words in my mouth trying to say I said things I didn't say isn't going to change the fact that there is enough discrimination and racism in your own country to keep you busy a good long time.


----------



## Paumon

Okay, so you don't like how they deal with hate crimes in Ontario but you never said how _you_ thought it should be handled. So tell me. When that same kind of thing happens in your country what do you think should be done about it?


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> Okay, so you don't like how they deal with hate crimes in Ontario but you never said how _you_ thought it should be handled. So tell me. When that same kind of thing happens in your country what do you think should be done about it?


 
Um no, what you don't seem to understand is I don't have to explain things I never said to begin with to you.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Okay, so you don't like how they deal with hate crimes in Ontario but you never said how _you_ thought it should be handled. So tell me. When that same kind of thing happens in your country what do you think should be done about it?


If the sign applies to you, don't shop their! You'll be a lot happier going to the store that says "we welcome you with open arm and appreciate your business". 

Many stores have signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service". Their obviously discriminating, but theirs a health issue too! What to do? :shrug: Their are also a gazillion places with signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Food establishments need to have the "right" or bums would close them down, because they would never leave! A business OWNER doesn't have to do what a potential customer wants them to do, to think otherwise is foolish, and reeks of fascism!


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> Um no, what you don't seem to understand is I don't have to explain things I never said to begin with to you.


Well if you weren't going to explain anything about it then what was the point of posting it with the comment "Perhaps Paumon would prefer we handle it like her country does" ?  You got my answer that I would prefer it. So what is your preference?

Oh wait .... now I get it. :facepalm: You only looked at the picture on there and thought it was a problem that was not being handled so you ran with it to the forum to make some kind of come uppance point - you didn't bother to pay attention to the whole story and see that it was being handled as a hate crime, right?

Meh. :indif:


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> If the sign applies to you, don't shop their! You'll be a lot happier going to the store that says "we welcome you with open arm and appreciate your business".
> 
> Many stores have signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service". Their obviously discriminating, but theirs a health issue too! What to do? :shrug: Their are also a gazillion places with signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Food establishments need to have the "right" or bums would close them down, because they would never leave! A business OWNER doesn't have to do what a potential customer wants them to do, to think otherwise is foolish, and reeks of fascism!


I agree with all of this but with an exception. If the service was an essential service that everyone would need and there's no other place for people to go to get that essential service then I would take steps that would ensure they have their policy changed to include everyone.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> I agree with all of this but with an exception. If the service was an essential service that everyone would need and there's no other place for people to go to get that essential service then I would take steps that would ensure they have their policy changed to include everyone.


There shouldn't even be a question for "essential services".......ever, but, now we need to find out how slippery a slope were on! Who gets to determine what exactly an essential service is? Fire and emergency medical is as far as I'll go. If you start welfare, you start discriminating. Service is labor only, no goods changes hands.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> Well if you weren't going to explain anything about it then what was the point of posting it with the comment "Perhaps Paumon would prefer we handle it like her country does" ?  You got my answer that I would prefer it. So what is your preference?
> 
> Oh wait .... now I get it. :facepalm: You only looked at the picture on there and thought it was a problem that was not being handled so you ran with it to the forum to make some kind of come uppance point - you didn't bother to pay attention to the whole story and see that it was being handled as a hate crime, right?
> 
> Meh. :indif:


 
No, I read the story that's why I posted it. The point being it seems to me that Canadians have their own racist issues and handle it by putting No Indian signs up. Doesn't matter that it was treated as a hate crime, that doesn't change the fact that your citizens are in no better shape and clearly are not as evolved as you would like to think, even after your talk of moral superiority.


----------



## beowoulf90

jtbrandt said:


> For the record (as if anyone cares) I have no problem with homosexuals and I would even make a cake for a gay wedding if I knew how to make cakes, but I fully support the right of individuals to choose who they will do business with.


And as I've said in the past..

I don't care if Gays get married.. It doesn't affect my religious beliefs one iota.
It doesn't affect how I treat my friends or family. 

My only problem with Gays at this moment is they now take offense to everything.. 
They are upset they couldn't march in some parade, yet I bet they wouldn't give the Westboro Baptist Church a permit to march in the Gay Pride Parade(s) through out the country.. Funny how it only seems to work one way..

Those that cry "discrimination" and "racism" all the time are cowards and very insecure in their own beliefs..
They are afraid to face the real world where both exist..

They think they can legislate "kindness" when the reality is the only way to change it is to teach your children not to hate based on race or sexual preferences..But it seems the likes of Al (the racist scum) Sharpton and his ilk will use race, sexual preference etc to gain dollars and power.. They will claim to help those folks "rise up" and yet if you look at the reality the only thing that has happened over the *decades* is that is has made Sharpton and his ilk wealthy..


----------



## painterswife

beowoulf90 said:


> And as I've said in the past..
> 
> I don't care if Gays get married.. It doesn't affect my religious beliefs one iota.
> It doesn't affect how I treat my friends or family.
> 
> My only problem with Gays at this moment is they now take offense to everything..
> They are upset they couldn't march in some parade, yet I bet they wouldn't give the Westboro Baptist Church a permit to march in the Gay Pride Parade(s) through out the country.. Funny how it only seems to work one way..
> 
> Those that cry "discrimination" and "racism" all the time are cowards and very insecure in their own beliefs..
> They are afraid to face the real world where both exist..
> 
> They think they can legislate "kindness" when the reality is the only way to change it is to teach your children not to hate based on race or sexual preferences..But it seems the likes of Al (the racist scum) Sharpton and his ilk will use race, sexual preference etc to gain dollars and power.. They will claim to help those folks "rise up" and yet if you look at the reality the only thing that has happened over the *decades* is that is has made Sharpton and his ilk wealthy..


If someone called Al Sharpton a bigot, I could believe that they might be able to teach their children not to hate based on race but the term racists scum, leads me to believe it is not possible.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> If someone called Al Sharpton a bigot, I could believe that they might be able to teach their children not to hate based on race but the term racists scum, leads me to believe it is not possible.


 
Scum, low life, bottom feeder all describe the likes of Al Sharpton and his fellow race baiters, none of which have anything to do with the color of his skin.


----------



## unregistered353870

beowoulf90 said:


> And as I've said in the past..
> 
> I don't care if Gays get married.. It doesn't affect my religious beliefs one iota.
> It doesn't affect how I treat my friends or family.
> 
> My only problem with Gays at this moment is they now take offense to everything..
> They are upset they couldn't march in some parade, yet I bet they wouldn't give the Westboro Baptist Church a permit to march in the Gay Pride Parade(s) through out the country.. Funny how it only seems to work one way..
> 
> Those that cry "discrimination" and "racism" all the time are cowards and very insecure in their own beliefs..
> They are afraid to face the real world where both exist..
> 
> They think they can legislate "kindness" when the reality is the only way to change it is to teach your children not to hate based on race or sexual preferences..But it seems the likes of Al (the racist scum) Sharpton and his ilk will use race, sexual preference etc to gain dollars and power.. They will claim to help those folks "rise up" and yet if you look at the reality the only thing that has happened over the *decades* is that is has made Sharpton and his ilk wealthy..


Some of what you wrote is why I support the right to choose who you will do business with. In my business, I don't discriminate against gays (I'd be stupid to do so...they tend to have money in my area) but I absolutely refuse to deal with jerks...if a jerk happens to be gay, that's not my problem. Jerks tend to have money here, too, but it's not worth the aggravation.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> If someone called Al Sharpton a bigot, I could believe that they might be able to teach their children not to hate based on race but the term racists scum, leads me to believe it is not possible.


Sometimes the word bigot is not strong enough for the reality. I saw nothing in his post that indicated hatred based on race, only hatred based on racism. We are "supposed to" hate racism, aren't we?


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> Sometimes the word bigot is not strong enough for the reality. I saw nothing in his post that indicated hatred based on race, only hatred based on racism. We are "supposed to" hate racism, aren't we?


I find the constant need to use words that quantify or qualify the level of hate in a discussion such as this just escalate it.

Someone started a thread the other day about "Why so much hate" Those kind of qualifying words are exactly why. We are bombarded with the hate non stop and it just gets peoples backs up and really does not add anything to the conversation.

I saw hate in those words. I see lots of hate in this thread. If I was not fighting so hard against the hate and what it does to people I would not even bother to post.

You can express your passion for a subject most of the time with out using words such as scum.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I find the constant need to use words that quantify or qualify the level of hate in a discussion such as this just escalate it.
> 
> Someone started a thread the other day about "Why so much hate" Those kind of qualifying words are exactly why. We are bombarded with the hate non stop and it just gets peoples backs up and really does not add anything to the conversation.
> 
> I saw hate in those words. I see lots of hate in this thread. If I was not fighting so hard against the hate and what it does to people I would not even bother to post.
> 
> You can express your passion for a subject most of the time with out using words such as scum.


 
Wanting to fight against hate is a good thing but sometimes people see hate where there is none. Backing people into a corner and trying to force them to change what they believe is right does nothing but cause more division. I don't hate gays I don't care if they marry. They should be able to live their life as they see fit without others forcing them to do things they don't feel are right... so should the rest of us.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Wanting to fight against hate is a good thing but sometimes people see hate where there is none. Backing people into a corner and trying to force them to change what they believe is right does nothing but cause more division. I don't hate gays I don't care if they marry. They should be able to live their life as they see fit without others forcing them to do things they don't feel are right... so should the rest of us.


Passing laws that don't allow discrimination. Never did see that as backing someone into a corner. If it is then they should not be there in the first place.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> It is treated as a hate crime in Canada and they face the full force of the law.


Which means the police have the power to at least attempt to control how you think. If your thoughts are wrong, you "hate" the wrong people, then you face "the full force of the law".

Again I have to ask if the government has this power does it not also have the power to use "the full force of the law" to require you *to* hate the 'right' people?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Which means the police have the power to at least attempt to control how you think. If your thoughts are wrong, you "hate" the wrong people, then you face "the full force of the law".
> 
> Again I have to ask if the government has this power does it not also have the power to use "the full force of the law" to require you *to* hate the 'right' people?


You can hate them all you want. You just can not act on it. I think that is a great law. Just as I think the law against murder is a great law.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> It says right there the police investigated it as a hate crime. I think that treating it as a hate crime was the proper thing to do. If the same thing happened in your country I would think the proper thing to do would be to treat it as a hate crime.
> 
> Apparently you think that is the wrong way to deal with it. Are you suggesting otherwise, that it should be ignored and pretend it doesn't happen and let hatred and racism continue?


The real questions should be why should the government should have the power to control how you think and how you control your personal property?

Once again I have to ask; if it has the power to force you to sell to someone you don't want to doesn't also have power to force you to *not* sell to someone you do want to?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Passing laws that don't allow discrimination. Never did see that as backing someone into a corner. If it is then they should not be there in the first place.


It seems in your mind freedom only applies to a few. Forcing someone to do something against their beliefs is backing them into a corner. That baker didn't force the couple to comply to his beliefs, that couple forced the baker to comply to their beliefs. You have no right to tell anybody where they should be to begin with. How hard is it to understand you can't control what people think or feel?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> _*Where does the government get the power to tell a private citizen how to run their business?*_
> 
> The governments get their power from the public and they enforce the power granted to them by the public to tell the private citizen how to run his business when the private citizen has been using his business to abuse the public (the customers).
> 
> Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Take a while and THINK about what you are saying and the following statements. The government has to power to control how you sell your private property if that power has been granted to them by the public. The government has the power to force blacks to ride in the back of the bus if that power is granted to them by the public.
.
.
Compare the two statements.
.
.
Are they truly different?
.
.
.
Using your logic the statements are true. Using the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution, they are false because the government is not given those powers.

The government is not supposed to be able to do anything other than what the US Constitution allows them and not do things it is SPECIFICALLY denied from. The USC has two places where it very clearly says that the government has no power to control a citizen's private property without due process. And passing a law saying it has that control is not due process.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> It seems in your mind freedom only applies to a few. Forcing someone to do something against their beliefs is backing them into a corner. That baker didn't force the couple to comply to his beliefs, that couple forced the baker to comply to their beliefs.


The couple asked to not be discriminated against. If I was discriminated against I would fight it as well. There is a law and they chose to go that route. This was a cake folks. They did not ask them to bless their marriage. They wanted a wedding cake and it was no business of the bakers what kind of marriage the cake was for.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> I agree with all of this but with an exception. If the service was an essential service that everyone would need and there's no other place for people to go to get that essential service then I would take steps that would ensure they have their policy changed to include everyone.


Such as forcing someone to open another business to offer this service to the others? Even if that person doesn't want to do so?

Again the power of governments should be VERY limited, hence the USC, because once you start giving it powers it does not have it tends to take more and more and more. Look at government restrictions on smoking, light bulbs, autos, etc.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The couple asked to not be discriminated against. If I was discriminated against I would fight it as well. There is a law and they chose to go that route. This was a cake folks. They did not ask them to bless their marriage. They wanted a wedding cake and it was no business of the bakers what kind of marriage the cake was for.


 
Well when they didn't get what they wanted they should have put on their big girl panties and went elsewhere. Entitlement is not a right in this country and their Mommy and Daddy should have taught them that.


----------



## dixiegal62

watcher said:


> Such as forcing someone to open another business to offer this service to the others? Even if that person doesn't want to do so?
> 
> Again the power of governments should be VERY limited, hence the USC, because once you start giving it powers it does not have it tends to take more and more and more. Look at government restrictions on smoking, light bulbs, autos, etc.


 
Your preaching to the choir watcher these people love government restrictions.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Well when they didn't get what they wanted they should have put on their big girl panties and went elsewhere. Entitlement is not a right in this country and their Mommy and Daddy should have taught them that.


Sorry, don't agree. Discrimination is against the law and written into the USC. It is the right thing to fight it. It is putting on your big girl panties to fight what is wrong.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> You can hate them all you want. You just can not act on it. I think that is a great law. Just as I think the law against murder is a great law.


The wife says my mind works differently than others and it has brought an interesting question. 

Say you owned a business and someone walked in who you knew had murdered someone dear to you. Heck lets say they had been tried, convicted and served their time so there is no doubt in anyone's mind. And during the time they were in prison you had many times stated how much you 'hated' them and all murders. Could refuse to serve them or if you did would you then you'd face the full force of the law acting on your hate of them?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Sorry, don't agree. Discrimination is against the law and written into the USC. It is the right thing to fight it. It is putting on your big girl panties to fight what is wrong.


Ok, I'll bite show me WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION it says you, as an individual, are forbidden to discriminate. I've shown you where it says that a government can not discriminate but I have yet to be shown where it says an individual is forbidden from doing so.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> The wife says my mind works differently than others and it has brought an interesting question.
> 
> Say you owned a business and someone walked in who you knew had murdered someone dear to you. Heck lets say they had been tried, convicted and served their time so there is no doubt in anyone's mind. And during the time they were in prison you had many times stated how much you 'hated' them and all murders. Could refuse to serve them or if you did would you then you'd face the full force of the law acting on your hate of them?


That is not actionable discrimination with regards to our laws.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> That is not discrimination with regards to our laws.


Why not? Isn't one of the very definition of discrimination refusing to serve an individual member of group based on your hatred of the group as a whole? Wouldn't it be a violation of the murder's rights if you refused to bake him a wedding cake just because you hated murders? Wouldn't it be WRONG if he had to go to a different place to get his cake because you are nothing but a hater?

Also does the government gets to decide which segments of the population you may hate and discriminate against? If so could it not add murders to the list? Now think about this very long and hard: Could it also remove a group from the list?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Ok, I'll bite show me WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION it says you, as an individual, are forbidden to discriminate. I've shown you where it says that a government can not discriminate but I have yet to be shown where it says an individual is forbidden from doing so.


USC
Commerce Clause
Civil rights Act of 1964
Laws
Upheld by the Supreme Court


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> That is not actionable discrimination with regards to our laws.


 
:hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Sorry, don't agree. Discrimination is against the law and written into the USC. It is the right thing to fight it. It is putting on your big girl panties to fight what is wrong.


Discrimination BY GOVERNMENT is against the law and written into the constitution. The baker, as far as I know, was not a government baker.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> USC


Where in the USC specifically?




painterswife said:


> Commerce Clause


Let us look at the places "commerce" it brought up. In Art 1; Sec 8 congress is given the power to "_To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes._" and in Art 1; Sec 9 it congress it told that "_No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another._" 

Funny, I don't see anything there which says it has to power to regulate, in any way, commerce between individuals which takes place completely within one state. I might have missed it, care to show me where it says that?




painterswife said:


> Civil rights Act of 1964


Not part of the USC. 




painterswife said:


> Laws


Laws are not part of the USC.





painterswife said:


> Upheld by the Supreme Court


How you account for the fact the USSC has ruled that discrimination was constitutional and unconstitutional? Did the constitution change? Or did the political winds shift to the point the USSC decided to shift its view as well? What happens if the winds shift again, will it suddenly find out that their first ruling was correct?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Where in the USC specifically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us look at the places "commerce" it brought up. In Art 1; Sec 8 congress is given the power to "_To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes._" and in Art 1; Sec 9 it congress it told that "_No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another._"
> 
> Funny, I don't see anything there which says it has to power to regulate, in any way, commerce between individuals which takes place completely within one state. I might have missed it, care to show me where it says that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not part of the USC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are not part of the USC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you account for the fact the USSC has ruled that discrimination was constitutional and unconstitutional? Did the constitution change? Or did the political winds shift to the point the USSC decided to shift its view as well? What happens if the winds shift again, will it suddenly find out that their first ruling was correct?


The USC and Commerce clause allowed the government the power to pass the Civil rights act . They then passed laws and the Supreme Court upheld them.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> The USC and Commerce clause allowed the government the power to pass the Civil rights act . They then passed laws and the Supreme Court upheld them.


I'm not (I ALMOST edited the "not" out, that would have been bad!) trying to to be insulting but can you read and think for yourself? Repeating the 'the USSC says so' is like a kid saying "because" every time you ask him why he did something; its not a reason, its a dodge. 

The USSC has proven that it is fallible what makes YOU think they are correct this time? What words in the USC make YOU think the commerce clause gives the government the power to regulate an individual's life? Show me where YOU see that in the parts of it I posted?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I'm not (I ALMOST edited the not out, that would have been bad!) trying to to be insulting but can you read and think for yourself? Repeating the 'the USSC says so' is like a kid saying "because" every time you ask him why he did something; its not a reason, its a dodge.
> 
> The USSC has proven that it is fallible what makes YOU think they are correct this time? What words in the USC make YOU think the commerce clause gives the government the power to regulate an individual's life? Show me where YOU see that in the parts of it I posted?


Iit gives the government the ability to regulate business. PS I have read the court cases that back this up.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Iit gives the government the ability to regulate business. PS I have read the court cases that back this up.


Was the baker engaged in commerce with foreign nations, among other states, or with Indian tribes?


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> Was the baker engaged in commerce with foreign nations, among other states, or with Indian tribes?


Read some of the court cases. The general consensus is that discrimination is bad for interstate commerce and therefore laws may be created against it.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Iit gives the government the ability to regulate business. PS I have read the court cases that back this up.


Sigh. . .the moon is made of green cheese. What make me think so? Because someone told me so and others have backed it up. What makes me think they are correct? Because they say so and others back them up. But what do I think? I don't think I only parrot what someone has told me. 

What words in there make _*YOU*_ think this clause gives the government that power? 

The way I read the words in the USC it unless you are a foreign nation, one of the several States or an Indian Tribe the congress has no power to regulate your commerce. Show me where YOU think I'm in error.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Read some of the court cases. The general consensus is that discrimination is bad for interstate commerce and therefore laws may be created against it.


Good gravy, using that logic they could say that women wearing clothing is bad for interstate commerce and therefore laws may be created against it. (google "_Ferengi women_" to get the reference)


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Iit gives the government the ability to regulate business. PS I have read the court cases that back this up.


FYI, if you look you will find court cases which back up the state's right to segregate its citizens.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Read some of the court cases. The general consensus is that discrimination is bad for interstate commerce and therefore laws may be created against it.


I admit I haven't read them, but if they really say that, they are wrong in a big way. That's not unusual though.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> Good gravy, using that logic they could say that women wearing clothing is bad for interstate commerce and therefore laws may be created against it. (google "_Ferengi women_" to get the reference)


I'm on board with that. I need to file a law suit. Can we discriminate and make it only apply to the young attractive women, though?


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> No, I read the story that's why I posted it. The point being it seems to me that Canadians have their own racist issues and handle it by putting No Indian signs up. Doesn't matter that it was treated as a hate crime, that doesn't change the fact that your citizens are in no better shape and clearly are not as evolved as you would like to think, *even after your talk of moral superiority*.


You really do need to pay closer attention. I never talked about Canada's moral superiority, never said one word about it. An American poster here was the one that talked about it and I simply replied to him that I agreed with him. Period. I still believe that but I have never discussed it or offered an explanation about why I believe it. I don't care if my personal beliefs about that offends you so you may as well get used to it and get over it instead of ragging on about it.



watcher said:


> The real questions should be why should the government should have the power to control how you think and how you control your personal property?
> 
> Once again I have to ask; if it has the power to force you to sell to someone you don't want to *doesn't it also have power to force you to not sell to someone you do want to?*


Yes. Or at the very least it tries to force certain people to not sell certain things to certain people. Examples being there are laws about not selling drugs, alcohol, firearms, ammunition, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, etc. to minors and other people who have been declared not fit to possess those things. There are probably lots of other examples.



watcher said:


> *Such as forcing someone to open another business to offer this service to the others? Even if that person doesn't want to do so?*
> 
> Again the power of governments should be VERY limited, hence the USC, because once you start giving it powers it does not have it tends to take more and more and more. Look at government restrictions on smoking, light bulbs, autos, etc.


No to the bolded part. I said if there was no other place to obtain the essential service I would take steps to ensure that their policy was changed to include providing the essential service to everyone. 

I don't believe anyone should try to force an unwilling person to open a business and I have difficulty imagining how such a thing could be done. Do you have any examples of such a thing having ever occurred in your country?



> Say you owned a business and someone walked in who you knew had murdered someone dear to you. Heck lets say they had been tried, convicted and served their time so there is no doubt in anyone's mind. And during the time they were in prison you had many times stated how much you 'hated' them and all murders. Could refuse to serve them or if you did would you then you'd face the full force of the law acting on your hate of them?


Only a fool would return to the place where he had commit murder knowing he was hated and expecting service from those who hated him. He'd be lucky if shunning was the worst that happened to him.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> I can tell you this much, this silly situation that you guys are dealing with down there with religious right and gay cakes and unwilling photographers and righteous indignation of bigots is an immature farce that would never happen here.





Paumon said:


> And just to confirm one particular thing with you - yes, I freely admit that I do believe that Canada and several other countries are "morally superior" to America. That doesn't mean that I think Canada or other countries are "better" than America and it doesn't mean that I don't like America and American people - if I didn't like the folks here then I would not be a participant here.





Paumon said:


> You really do need to pay closer attention. I never talked about Canada's moral superiority, never said one word about it..


:thumb:


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> :thumb:


You do know that you are the one that first mentioned Morally Superior not her and she did not say it was with regards to this topic.


----------



## Paumon

painterswife said:


> You do know that you are the one that first mentioned Morally Superior not her and she did not say it was with regards to this topic.


Actually it was Vash that mentioned it first and I agreed with him.


----------



## painterswife

Paumon said:


> Actually it was Vash that mentioned it first and I agreed with him.


Oops, you are correct.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> You do know that you are the one that first mentioned Morally Superior not her and she did not say it was with regards to this topic.


 
Sorry but no and it was in this topic.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> I'm on board with that. I need to file a law suit. Can we discriminate and make it only apply to the young attractive women, though?


I'm afraid it would get tossed in court due to being "unconstitutionally vague". How do you define young? Attractive? Therefore we'd have to keep it as all women.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Sorry but no and it was in this topic.


It was in this thread but it did not say it was with regards to this topic.


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> :thumb:


Thanks for posting those quotes. :thumb:

I tried to locate them so I could offer the proof that I wasn't the one who brought up the subject of moral superiority but I couldn't remember what page it was on. Now that you've posted those quotes the blue arrows on them can be clicked on to refer back to to see whose post it was about moral superiority that I was replying to.

That first quote there - that has nothing to do with moral superiority unless that's the way you want to interpret it. The fact is though that it's just stating the truth that the whole situation is a farce. Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> It was in this thread but it did not say it was with regards to this topic.


 
Doesn't matter, I for one feel much better getting that off my chest as it kind of stuck in my craw since I read it  Paumon is free to believe anything she wants ( at least I think Canadians are still free to think ) It's just I find it hard to take it seriously when someone is condemning others while they are standing above them looking down. I'm over it now. But as I said she's free to believe it.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> Thanks for posting those quotes. :thumb:
> 
> I tried to locate them so I could offer the proof that I wasn't the one who brought up the subject of moral superiority but I couldn't remember what page it was on. Now that you've posted those quotes the blue arrows on them can be clicked on to refer back to to see whose post it was about moral superiority that I was replying to.
> 
> That first quote there - that has nothing to do with moral superiority unless that's the way you want to interpret it. The fact is though that it's just stating the truth that the whole situation is a farce. Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.


 
My feelings are in no way hurt. I happen to believe we humans are free to think how we want and feel what we want, and I don't believe any Government gives us those rights. We are born with them.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> No to the bolded part. I said if there was no other place to obtain the essential service I would take steps to ensure that their policy was changed to include providing the essential service to everyone.


Wouldn't forcing someone to open a business to serve those not currently being served be a step to ensure the service is available to everyone? Is there really that big of a jump from forcing a person to sell to someone he doesn't want to and forcing them to work in a job they do not want or opening a business they do not to operate?




Paumon said:


> I don't believe anyone should try to force an unwilling person to open a business and


Why not, you think its ok to force an unwilling person to sell their private property why not to force them to open a business? 




Paumon said:


> I have difficulty imagining how such a thing could be done.


Simple, you pass a law and give the government the power necessary to enforce it. Think of the way it deals with collecting tax, at least the way the IRS does. Say the government says an ice cream store is a necessary service and the only one in town refuses to sell to left handed people. So they come to your door and tell you; "You either open an ice cream store and sell ice cream to left handed people or we take all your property and put you in jail." You then have the choice use your private property (your money and labor) to do as they say or you lose all your property and freedom.




Paumon said:


> Do you have any examples of such a thing having ever occurred in your country?


Not yet but as I have stated. . .on 06 DEC 41 Japan had never attacked Pearl Harbor, on 27 JAN 86 a space shuttle had never exploded, on10 SEP 01 terrorist had never taken down buildings with airliners.




Paumon said:


> Only a fool would return to the place where he had commit murder knowing he was hated and expecting service from those who hated him. He'd be lucky if shunning was the worst that happened to him.


I didn't say he went to the place he was murdered, only he had murdered someone dear to the store owner. The murder could have taken place in another city, state or even nation.

That aside couldn't the same thing you said have been said about a black going into a whites only business in the old south? Does might make right or do you think its OK to discriminate against people as long as you think they should be discriminated against?


----------



## Paumon

Watcher, I think you're flogging a dead horse and you need to stop presenting all these imaginary scenarios that are whizzing around inside your head. Paranoia about the unknown is not healthy. Maybe you should start back at page 1 again and read everyone's responses about the facts as they are known.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> I'm afraid it would get tossed in court due to being "unconstitutionally vague". How do you define young? Attractive? Therefore we'd have to keep it as all women.


But that might be worse for interstate commerce than having no naked women. Of course the subjective measure of attractiveness is similar to the the subjective claim that discrimination is "bad" for interstate commerce.


----------



## unregistered353870

> Maybe you should start back at page 1 again and read everyone's responses about the facts as they are known.


That might qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Watcher, I think you're flogging a dead horse and you need to stop presenting all these imaginary scenarios that are whizzing around inside your head. Paranoia about the unknown is not healthy. Maybe you should start back at page 1 again and read everyone's responses about the facts as they are known.


Let me post the facts, as I see them, and you point out me where my facts are wrong.

Fact: Every time in the USC the word "State" is used it is about state government.

Fact: Every time in the USC the word "people" is used it is about individuals.

Fact: The only places the USC says anything about discrimination, the 14th amendment, it refers to actions taken, or failed to take, by the "State".

Do you agree those are the facts?


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> Let me post the facts, as I see them, and you point out me where my facts are wrong.
> 
> Fact: Every time in the USC the word "State" is used it is about state government.
> 
> Fact: Every time in the USC the word "people" is used it is about individuals.
> 
> Fact: The only places the USC says anything about discrimination, the 14th amendment, it refers to actions taken, or failed to take, by the "State".
> 
> Do you agree those are the facts?


Sorry hon, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree about those. For me to come to a conclusion would require me to read the USC and I'm not about to do that. I think though that if the word "people" is used it will probably be referring to the public meaning "all the people" such as in "we the people" - everybody, not individuals.

State can mean any one or all of the states or it can mean the nation as a whole including its territories because the nation is also a state (your president is the head of state meaning the head of the nation). It all depends on the context in which the word is used.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Sorry hon, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree about those. For me to come to a conclusion would require me to read the USC and I'm not about to do that. I think though that if the word "people" is used it will probably be referring to the public meaning "all the people" such as in "we the people" - everybody, not individuals.


Our supreme court ruled that "people" as used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights meant 
" individual". As in "the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed" was ruled to be an "individual" right.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Sorry hon, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree about those. For me to come to a conclusion would require me to read the USC and I'm not about to do that. I think though that if the word "people" is used it will probably be referring to the public meaning "all the people" such as in "we the people" - everybody, not individuals.
> 
> State can mean any one or all of the states or it can mean the nation as a whole including its territories because the nation is also a state (your president is the head of state meaning the head of the nation). It all depends on the context in which the word is used.


Well that's shocking, you have been discussing a subject you now have admitted you have no idea about nor know the facts involved.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> Well that's shocking, you have been discussing a subject you now have admitted you have no idea about nor know the facts involved.


To be fair to her, your original question was about belief in personal freedom, not the U.S. Constitution. I think she has answered that question.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> Well that's shocking, you have been discussing a subject you now have admitted you have no idea about nor know the facts involved.


:shocked: You're shocked?

:hysterical: See, you haven't been paying attention either. I have not been discussing your constitution. You're the one that's been doing all of that and trying to drag other people into discussing it with you. I've been discussing governments and bigotry and discrimination and religions and border regulations but not your constitution and I'm not falling for getting dragged into _that_. 

But if you're interested I'd be willing to discuss _my_ constitution. :grin:

I know about the facts involved re: the story about the religious baker and the gay wedding cake and the governor's decision about the proposed bill (which I gave a big cheer for when I heard that). It was all over the news everywhere and such a great big deal was made of it it was unavoidable to hear about it. I knew about it before you started this topic.


----------



## Paumon

6 more posts to go and there'll be 1,000 posts.


----------



## unregistered41671

Paumon said:


> 6 more posts to go and there'll be 1,000 posts.


You guys could do that in your sleep.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Well that's shocking, you have been discussing a subject you now have admitted you have no idea about nor know the facts involved.


What is even more amazing is that someone who has not bothered to read our constitution seems to have a much better understanding of it than some of our own citizens that claim to have some knowledge of its words.


----------



## Paumon

I've read little bits of it in the past - mostly the bits about freedom of speech and the bits about having a militia and people having the right to bear arms but I don't agree with the supreme court's interpretations of that one. I think it should be amended to read correctly or reinterpreted again but it doesn't matter what I think about that.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What is even more amazing is that someone who has not bothered to read our constitution seems to have a much better understanding of it than some of our own citizens that claim to have some knowledge of its words.


I have to say you surprised me in this thread. You usually seem to be for a very "plain meaning" interpretation of the Constitution, but in this case not so much. I didn't read your positions thoroughly (and I skipped probably ten or so pages of this thread) but I'm always wary of when people start to explain how the words mean something more than they actually say.

Anyway, I can't say anyone is wrong about the Constitution and case law because I honestly don't know the subject well enough to be confident in what has been established by court rulings and such, but I am thankfully not bound by the U.S. Constitution. I did swear an oath to support and defend it, and I believe I have done that to the best of my ability.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> I have to say you surprised me in this thread. You usually seem to be for a very "plain meaning" interpretation of the Constitution, but in this case not so much. I didn't read your positions thoroughly (and I skipped probably ten or so pages of this thread) but I'm always wary of when people start to explain how the words mean something more than they actually say.
> 
> Anyway, I can't say anyone is wrong about the Constitution and case law because I honestly don't know the subject well enough to be confident in what has been established by court rulings and such, but I am thankfully not bound by the U.S. Constitution. I did swear an oath to support and defend it, and I believe I have done that to the best of my ability.


OK I am not suggesting these amendments need to be interpreted beyond their actual content... only that they need to be taken side by side in order to grasp the full extent of their meaning. The ninth points out that ther are rights beyond those specifically named in the constitution... the tenth points out that all rights are retained by the states and the people unless they are specifically placed in the hands of the federal government. Then in the fourteenth it defines who is a citizen and that ALL citizens are to have those rights protected equally under the law.


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> If someone called Al Sharpton a bigot, I could believe that they might be able to teach their children not to hate based on race but the term racists scum, leads me to believe it is not possible.


Then what is he (and his ilk), if he isn't a racist and the scum of the earth.

I guess because you don't approve of the way I said it, it makes me wrong.

Well imagine that!

From where I stand, the only reason you don't like what I said and imply that I'm a racist is because you can't stand my Constitutional politics..

Fine by me, but just say it, if you are brave enough, Call me a racist all you want. When you learn the truth you will wonder what the hades you were thinking and wonder what other mistakes you've made in your life..

But again because a progressives doesn't agree with what was said, they have to call the messenger a racist, hate monger etc..

:clap: Thank you for proving it once again.


----------



## painterswife

beowoulf90 said:


> Then what is he (and his ilk), if he isn't a racist and the scum of the earth.
> 
> I guess because you don't approve of the way I said it, it makes me wrong.
> 
> Well imagine that!
> 
> From where I stand, the only reason you don't like what I said and imply that I'm a racist is because you can't stand my Constitutional politics..
> 
> Fine by me, but just say it, if you are brave enough, Call me a racist all you want. When you learn the truth you will wonder what the hades you were thinking and wonder what other mistakes you've made in your life..
> 
> But again because a progressives doesn't agree with what was said, they have to call the messenger a racist, hate monger etc..
> 
> :clap: Thank you for proving it once again.


I don't care a wig about your politics nor did I call you a racist. I said that when you use words like scum in a discussion it colors everything else you say. If you had said I don't like Al Sharpton's politics or positions and why you disagree with them, I or anyone is far more likely to want to have a discussion with you instead of using pejoratives like scum. Words like scum set a tone that implies hate and hurts further discussion.

I don't care for Al Sharpton's politics or his way of trying to accomplish things either.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> To be fair to her, your original question was about belief in personal freedom, not the U.S. Constitution. I think she has answered that question.


Thanks for pointing that out, I do owe an apology. Another example of why I should not post when I'm tired.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> :shocked: You're shocked?


I owe you an apology. That was a snarky and uncalled for.




Paumon said:


> See, you haven't been paying attention either. I have not been discussing your constitution. You're the one that's been doing all of that and trying to drag other people into discussing it with you. I've been discussing governments and bigotry and discrimination and religions and border regulations but not your constitution and I'm not falling for getting dragged into _that_.


 That is where the problem comes in. When you talk about limiting freedom you MUST talk about governments because they are the greatest limiters of freedom known. When you talk about government you have to discuss the documents on which those governments are founded. In the US that's the constitution. 




Paumon said:


> But if you're interested I'd be willing to discuss _my_ constitution. :grin:


I'm always willing to learn, knowledge is power. Does your constitution grant you rights? IOW, if something is not listed it is not considered a right. I remember you strongly implied you have the 'right' to discriminate against a group as long as its not on the government's list of protected groups.




Paumon said:


> I know about the facts involved re: the story about the religious baker and the gay wedding cake and the governor's decision about the proposed bill (which I gave a big cheer for when I heard that). It was all over the news everywhere and such a great big deal was made of it it was unavoidable to hear about it. I knew about it before you started this topic.


That was only the latest thing and the spark which got me thinking enough to make the post.

The entire point is (based on the 'fact' you have no right to anything which must be provided by, taken from or forced upon another) you either believe:

A) People are free to believe how they wish as long as their life style doesn't interfere with another's rights.

Or

B) Someone, usually the government, should have the power to force people to either believe differently or to act against their beliefs even if their actions have no effect on another's rights.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What is even more amazing is that someone who has not bothered to read our constitution seems to have a much better understanding of it than some of our own citizens that claim to have some knowledge of its words.


I assume you have read it therefore I ask you if you disagree with the facts I posted.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK I am not suggesting these amendments need to be interpreted beyond their actual content... only that they need to be taken side by side in order to grasp the full extent of their meaning. The ninth points out that ther are rights beyond those specifically named in the constitution... the tenth points out that all rights are retained by the states and the people unless they are specifically placed in the hands of the federal government. Then in the fourteenth it defines who is a citizen and that ALL citizens are to have those rights protected equally under the law.


Yes or no. Do you believe that you have a constitutionally protected right to something that must be provided by, taken from or forced upon another?


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> I don't care a wig about your politics nor did I call you a racist. I said that when you use words like scum in a discussion it colors everything else you say. If you had said I don't like Al Sharpton's politics or positions and why you disagree with them, I or anyone is far more likely to want to have a discussion with you instead of using pejoratives like scum. Words like scum set a tone that implies hate and hurts further discussion.
> 
> I don't care for Al Sharpton's politics or his way of trying to accomplish things either.


Take note!

I said "imply" 

You want hate, just look in the mirror. Because you implied that I'm a racist and didn't teach my kids well. You ASSUME that I'm that way by the words, yet you don't read the words. A criminal is a criminal whether they've been caught or not. Or better yet a rose is a rose by any other name.. Just because you don't like the words, and ASSUME the validity of the statement from your biases of a word..

Funny how that works!

Oh maybe I've used the wrong word again or stated that wrong..

Ironic isn't it!
How the conversation got changed from the topic because I used the word "scum".

Oh and on a side note;

Compromise = The surrender of ones values on the installment plan...


----------



## painterswife

beowoulf90 said:


> Take note!
> 
> I said "imply"
> 
> You want hate, just look in the mirror. Because you implied that I'm a racist and didn't teach my kids well. You ASSUME that I'm that way by the words, yet you don't read the words. A criminal is a criminal whether they've been caught or not. Or better yet a rose is a rose by any other name.. Just because you don't like the words, and ASSUME the validity of the statement from your biases of a word..
> 
> Funny how that works!
> 
> Oh maybe I've used the wrong word again or stated that wrong..
> 
> Ironic isn't it!
> How the conversation got changed from the topic because I used the word "scum".
> 
> Oh and on a side note;
> 
> Compromise = The surrender of ones values on the installment plan...


I did not imply, you inferred. I look in the mirror every once in a while. I don't hate anyone. I might not like their actions but I don't hate the person.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Yes or no. Do you believe that you have a constitutionally protected right to something that must be provided by, taken from or forced upon another?


I was going to stay away from this but I'll answer. Yes, I do. Now I'll go on to elaborate. I have no special right to have anything that isn't offered to all others. I have no special right to force the Augusta golf club to offer me membership. It is a private club with private rules not open to the public. I do have the right to have a tee time at the local, privately owned golf course that has a sign out front that states "Open to the Public". I have no right to walk into Costco and demand to be allowed to purchase things without becoming a member. It is a private buyer's club not open to the public. I do have the right to purchase a membership as long as I meet all their specified criteria and then spend money to my heart's content. I have no special right to walk into a bakery and demand they bake me anything they don't offer. But as long as their doors are open to the public I have the same right to have them bake me something they commonly offer as anyone else. Public is most broadly defined as including all members of a given community. When you open your business to the public it is open to all of the public.


----------



## bowdonkey

I believe in personal freedom, but I also believe in personal accountability. Except for lawyers, bankers and politicians.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I was going to stay away from this but I'll answer. Yes, I do. Now I'll go on to elaborate. I have no special right to have anything that isn't offered to all others. I have no special right to force the Augusta golf club to offer me membership. It is a private club with private rules not open to the public. I do have the right to have a tee time at the local, privately owned golf course that has a sign out front that states "Open to the Public". I have no right to walk into Costco and demand to be allowed to purchase things without becoming a member. It is a private buyer's club not open to the public. I do have the right to purchase a membership as long as I meet all their specified criteria and then spend money to my heart's content. I have no special right to walk into a bakery and demand they bake me anything they don't offer. But as long as their doors are open to the public I have the same right to have them bake me something they commonly offer as anyone else. Public is most broadly defined as including all members of a given community. When you open your business to the public it is open to all of the public.


If you truly believe the statement then you believe that the government has the power to force you to provide your service to anyone it wishes because it, or they, have decided they have the "right" to it. You just want to pretend that it would only do it the way you want.

Let's use your specific examples. In accordance with the 10th amendment there's nothing in the USC which forbids you from playing nor that playing golf is limited only the federal or state governments so you clearly have the "right" to play golf. Therefore if you believe you have a "right" to something which others must provide you should be able to force the golf club to let you play because you have the "right" to play golf and no matter what their rules or beliefs are your "right" must be upheld. 

After all hasn't the courts ruled that golf clubs can not have in the rules of their PRIVATE club, rules barring specific groups of people and therefore FORCES the clubs to allow them to play? If the members only wanted to play with white males who can prove they are members of a Christian church and its rules to say only those people could be members of its club do you not think the government would use force the make them change their rules? If it can do it for specific groups why not for the individual? And if it has the power do that to a private group why not a private citizen?


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> I was going to stay away from this but I'll answer. Yes, I do. Now I'll go on to elaborate. I have no special right to have anything that isn't offered to all others. I have no special right to force the Augusta golf club to offer me membership. It is a private club with private rules not open to the public. I do have the right to have a tee time at the local, privately owned golf course that has a sign out front that states "Open to the Public". I have no right to walk into Costco and demand to be allowed to purchase things without becoming a member. It is a private buyer's club not open to the public. I do have the right to purchase a membership as long as I meet all their specified criteria and then spend money to my heart's content. I have no special right to walk into a bakery and demand they bake me anything they don't offer. But as long as their doors are open to the public* I have the same right to have them bake me something they commonly offer as anyone else.* *Public is most broadly defined as including all members of a given community. When you open your business to the public it is open to all of the public*.


WHY do you have that right? Does it specify something about that in The Constitution of the United States of America (I mean the one the Founders debated about endlessly and finally wrote up, not the one that the Change Agents prefer)?

You know, that âI have rightsâ angle is getting old. Every time itâs used I have to think of about how many times criminals have fallen back on the 5th Amendment.

More than once when I was tending the shop some jackass came in and gave me grief about some petty issue---it wasnât cake, but something I was selling; when I showed them the door, to a person they would become irate and demand their ârightsâ. Didnât do them a lick of good. Out. One had the audacity to come back a second time, and I actually locked the door on him. When he stood outside telling people what a horrible person I was, I called Law Enforcement and had him taken in for disturbing the peace.

People who are not specifically open about their intentions to just make trouble but are more subtle are no different.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> I'm always willing to learn, knowledge is power. Does your constitution grant you rights? IOW, if something is not listed it is not considered a right.


This is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms


This is information about the Constitution of Canada. It is the supreme law in Canada, with a basis in the Magna Carta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada 




watcher said:


> I remember you strongly implied you have the 'right' to discriminate against a group as long as its not on the government's list of protected groups.


I think you are confusing me with somebody else who might have implied that, perhaps about your own government's list of protected groups if such a list exists? 

My government and our constitution and charter of rights and freedoms has no such thing as a list of protected groups. All of Canada's citizens and permanent residents are protected and all are considered equal having equal rights without discrimination regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender, age, or mental or physical disability. See the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Guarantee of Rights items # 1 - 15. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> This is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
> 
> http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
> 
> 
> This is information about the Constitution of Canada. It is the supreme law in Canada, with a basis in the Magna Carta.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing me with somebody else who might have implied that, perhaps about your own government's list of protected groups if such a list exists?
> 
> My government and our constitution and charter of rights and freedoms has no such thing as a list of protected groups. All of Canada's citizens and permanent residents are protected and all are considered equal having equal rights without discrimination regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender, age, or mental or physical disability. See the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Guarantee of Rights items # 1 - 15. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html


Do those rights include non-citizens too? I didn't read it, just going by what you posted. Ours does not discriminate about citizenship.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK I am not suggesting these amendments need to be interpreted beyond their actual content... only that they need to be taken side by side in order to grasp the full extent of their meaning. The ninth points out that ther are rights beyond those specifically named in the constitution... the tenth points out that all rights are retained by the states and the people unless they are specifically placed in the hands of the federal government. Then in the fourteenth it defines who is a citizen and that ALL citizens are to have those rights protected equally under the law.


There's still a missing link. The fact that we have rights not enumerated is of course a big one. But that does not necessarily mean we have a right to not be discriminated against by individuals.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK I am not suggesting these amendments need to be interpreted beyond their actual content... only that they need to be taken side by side in order to grasp the full extent of their meaning. The ninth points out that ther are rights beyond those specifically named in the constitution... the tenth points out that all rights are retained by the states and the people unless they are specifically placed in the hands of the federal government. Then in the fourteenth it defines who is a citizen and that ALL citizens are to have those rights protected equally under the law.


But rights and the classes of people must be specifically listed for the government to use it's powers to resolve the issue. The Constitution limits government, not citizens. All the ninth means is that the government action may not violate rights to be established in the future but that is to protect people from government, not to use use the government to protect people from other people. The government can not abridge rights, even if those rights are not covered specifically.
I presume that in the 14th you are meaning to apply equal protection to all citizens. But that is protect equally from abuse by the government, not from abuse by it's citizens. So, if it illegal to murder one citizen it is illegal all citizens.
But it is not illegal to refuse to sell a cake. There is no equal caking law. There is no equal vending law. There is an Federal equal housing law. So housing laws must not discriminate against protected groups.
If there is equal right to everything under the sun that must be protected by the Federal government, there will be no way to protect people from excessive government in any respect- which is the whole purpose of the Constitution in the first place.
You can't just make this stuff up.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> Do those rights include non-citizens too? I didn't read it, just going by what you posted. Ours does not discriminate about citizenship.


It includes all Canadian citizens and all immigrant permanent residents who are in the country legally. Immigrant permanent residents may not have applied for or taken citizenship (it's not mandatory) or they might be awaiting the elapsed time period for citizenship applications to go into effect. If PR's are in the country working and residing legally they are permanent residents entitled to all rights of Canadian citizens with the following exceptions - because they're non-citizens they may not vote in elections, they may not run for elected office and they may not hold a Canadian passport. PR's also risk deportation for serious crimes committed while resident in Canada. Citizens can't be deported. Most PR's do eventually become citizens so that they have the benefits of all rights and protections. 

Needless to say those rights do not include non-Canadian citizens who live in foreign countries but Canadian citizens who are visiting or residing in foreign countries have the protections of Canadian embassies and consulates in foreign countries.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> I think you are confusing me with somebody else who might have implied that, perhaps about your own government's list of protected groups if such a list exists?
> 
> My government and our constitution and charter of rights and freedoms has no such thing as a list of protected groups. All of Canada's citizens and permanent residents are protected and all are considered equal having equal rights without discrimination regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender, age, or mental or physical disability. See the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Guarantee of Rights items # 1 - 15.


You just provided the list there. You seem to be free do discriminate against any group unless they are on the list you gave. Seems to me that you would be in compliance with the law if you opened a store and posted a sign which said "No left handed people allowed!" or "No one convicted of or arrested for any crime will be served." or "Welders, shipfitters and dogs must eat outside." After all those are not on the government's list of protected people are they?

And I have to admit I don't know so tell me what is necessary to change your charter?

Edited to add:

I just read the complete text of section 15 on wikipedia and there is a very interesting phrase in it: "_equal before and under the law_" seems to me we are back to the very same issue as before: does the government have the power to extend this section out of the government sector into the private one. Again how much power does the government, in this case the Canadian government, have to control the private life and affairs of the individual citizen. 

I know it has at least taken the power to tell you that you can't refuse to sell something to someone because you don't like their religion but can you refuse to date them on that basis? Could an orthodox Jew be sued for turning down a date from a Christian if the Jew told the Christian the reason was because they believed in Christ? After all that would seem to meet the standard set by section 15.


----------



## defenestrate

I think that in the modern age, as more people grow up without learning or buying into the discriminatory practices and beliefs of previous generations, the market, unrestrained, will eventually reward people who discriminate less or not at all while slowly phasing out those who purposely reject certain groups. Forcing everyone to do business with everyone else or not at all actually can have the reverse of the intendes effect, reinforcing bigoted beliefs while forcing them out of plain sight. Most people don,t actually like to be told how to live (including running a business), especially by an authority that claims to speak from a place of moral superiority. At least that's how I would feel, as would many of my friends. Of course, I can't think of anyone I would prefer not to work with or sell to, unless they are clearly jerks or so demanding that they keep me from doing as much business as I would without their patronage. I don't think either of those are considered governmentally protected groups. Yet.


----------



## Paumon

deleted.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> It includes all Canadian citizens and all immigrant permanent residents who are in the country legally. Immigrant permanent residents may not have applied for or taken citizenship (it's not mandatory) or they might be awaiting the elapsed time period for citizenship applications to go into effect. If PR's are in the country working and residing legally they are permanent residents entitled to all rights of Canadian citizens with the following exceptions - because they're non-citizens they may not vote in elections, they may not run for elected office and they may not hold a Canadian passport. PR's also risk deportation for serious crimes committed while resident in Canada. Citizens can't be deported. Most PR's do eventually become citizens so that they have the benefits of all rights and protections.
> 
> Needless to say those rights do not include non-Canadian citizens who live in foreign countries but Canadian citizens who are visiting or residing in foreign countries have the protections of Canadian embassies and consulates in foreign countries.


Thanks for the clarification! Just curious, why don't illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens in your country? They do here in the USA!


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I assume you have read it therefore I ask you if you disagree with the facts I posted.





watcher said:


> Yes or no. Do you believe that you have a constitutionally protected right to something that must be provided by, taken from or forced upon another?


I am not sure your "facts" are exactly factual. You seem to be a bit hung up about that whole provided for by another thing. Let's look at that for a moment. I do not have the wherewith all to build an airplane so if I want to fly cross country I will need someone else to provide that service to me. Since there are folks out there who do have airplanes and do provide flight service to the public I have just as much right to that service as any one else with the price of a ticket.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> Thanks for the clarification! Just curious, why don't illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens in your country? They do here in the USA!


Illegal means against the law and alien means not belonging and having no allegience. Why would criminals with no allegience and not belonging to a country that they've entered illegally be rewarded with any rights in any country? 

Criminals from other countries have no rights and freedoms in Canada and will be deported if they are discovered. It's not easy to live as an illegal alien in Canada, it's a very, very difficult life that is rife with extreme poverty, hardship, social isolation and deprivation. I don't understand why illegal aliens have any rights in USA but I guess if they are given rights and it's easy for them to live there then that must be why they are there.


----------



## watcher

I ask that you read my entire post before you answer any of the questions put to you. I think you'll see why at the end.



Paumon said:


> The government has the power that the people want it to have.


I noticed you failed to answer my question. Could a Jew find himself in court if he were heard by an officer of the court refusing the offer of a date because the other person was Christian? Why or why not? After all if, as you see it, section 15 applies to private citizens and their actions as well as the government then should it not be a hate crime to refuse a date based on religion? 



Paumon said:


> I think you should read the documentation in full and make a sincere and mature effort to comprehend it and not make more outrageous suggestions or questions based on unreasonable and fanciful imaginary scenarios. You have been repeating yourself with the same questions over and over for days now and misunderstanding or not accepting the answers you've been getting from people and then asking them again. Going by the evident miscomprehensions and unreasonable and weird suggestions in that last post of yours I think you are not sounding very stable with some of the strange things you are suggesting now and I'm genuinely concerned about you. Maybe you need to take a break from thinking and fixating about all of this stuff for awhile. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm really feeling like there is something wrong happening now with the strange things you are suggesting.


I'm just taking what we have now and what you are suggesting out beyond where it is now.

I'm guessing you are not a student of history. Think about the following, I mean REALLY think not just blow it off as a rant. Think about the time frames involved and the changes in those frames. 

What do you think someone in the US would have said 20 years ago if you told them in their life time it would be illegal to smoke in a bar, buy a 100 watt light bulb and some toilets would be made illegal?

How do you think a citizen of Cambodia would have reacted in 1965 if you had told him his own government would drive hundreds of thousands of people out of their city homes and into the country side and kill 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 of his fellow citizens?

What do you think a German in 1924 would have said if you told him in his life time his nation would again be at war with the world, it would be illegal for a Jew to own a business in Germany and it would be government policy to exterminate Jews from Germany?

Now what would you say if someone told you in your life time it would be illegal to refuse to date or marry someone based on the fact you didn't agree with their religious views? Or if they told you the government would the power to force you to provide a service you do not want because the government has decided that service was 'necessary'?

The real examples are just off the top of my head. Given time I could give you many, many more examples of how when the people stood back and allowed the government to take powers it should not have had really bad things happened. And right now I can't think of a single time where it happened and good things came from it, at least in the long run. 

I've lived long enough to see changes in the world, society and government/law I NEVER thought I'd see. If you had told me 10-20 years before they happened I would have said/thought about you what you are saying/thinking about me today. In the future, with the lens of history to view through, you will see things differently. The real question here is are you going to learn from history and try to change things are you going to just sit back and let it happen?


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Illegal means against the law and alien means not belonging and having no allegience. Why would criminals with no allegience and not belonging to a country that they've entered illegally be rewarded with any rights in any country?
> 
> Criminals from other countries have no rights and freedoms in Canada and will be deported if they are discovered. It's not easy to live as an illegal alien in Canada, it's a very, very difficult life that is rife with extreme poverty, hardship, social isolation and deprivation. I don't understand why illegal aliens have any rights in USA but I guess if they are given rights and it's easy for them to live there then that must be why they are there.


Yes, I sometimes wonder the same thing!!! I like Canada more each day!!!:clap:


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Illegal means against the law and alien means not belonging and having no allegience. *Why would criminals with no allegience and not belonging to a country that they've entered illegally be rewarded with any rights in any country?*


That's a GOOD [-------] question!! gre:


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> If you truly believe the statement then you believe that the government has the power to force you to provide your service to anyone it wishes because it, or they, have decided they have the "right" to it. You just want to pretend that it would only do it the way you want.
> 
> Let's use your specific examples. In accordance with the 10th amendment there's nothing in the USC which forbids you from playing nor that playing golf is limited only the federal or state governments so you clearly have the "right" to play golf. Therefore if you believe you have a "right" to something which others must provide you should be able to force the golf club to let you play because you have the "right" to play golf and no matter what their rules or beliefs are your "right" must be upheld.
> 
> After all hasn't the courts ruled that golf clubs can not have in the rules of their PRIVATE club, rules barring specific groups of people and therefore FORCES the clubs to allow them to play? If the members only wanted to play with white males who can prove they are members of a Christian church and its rules to say only those people could be members of its club do you not think the government would use force the make them change their rules? If it can do it for specific groups why not for the individual? And if it has the power do that to a private group why not a private citizen?


You're quite wrong as to how the SC has ruled regarding private clubs. One case pertinent to this issue involved private clubs in NYC. In that case they ruled that because the clubs allowed and even encouraged commerce by non members they were subject to the anti discrimination laws of New York. The other involved the the Boy Scouts and the court ruled that the scouts had the right to discriminate against gays. Private clubs that meet certain criteria can discriminate. Many religous organizations operate under these guidelines. Private clubs that provide public accomodations must provide those accomodations to the entire public. The SC has ruled on this and it is the current law of the land. You can choose to disagree and you can even choose to rail and fight against the status quo. None of that changes the law as it stands today.


----------



## JeffreyD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not sure your "facts" are exactly factual. You seem to be a bit hung up about that whole provided for by another thing. Let's look at that for a moment. I do not have the wherewith all to build an airplane so if I want to fly cross country I will need someone else to provide that service to me. Since there are folks out there who do have airplanes and do provide flight service to the public I have just as much right to that service as any one else with the price of a ticket.


Sorry YH, you don't have any "right" to buy anything.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> I don't understand why illegal aliens have any rights in USA but I guess if they are given rights and it's easy for them to live there then that must be why they are there.


Because we believe that rights are not given to anyone, but rather that people are born with them.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Since there are folks out there who do have airplanes and do provide flight service to the public I have just as much right to that service as any one else with the price of a ticket.


Yes, you do have just as much right as anybody else to that, but nobody else has ANY right to it...so just as much as none.


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> Because we believe that rights are not given to anyone, but rather that people are born with them.


Can you clarify that? Are you saying that people who are born on American soil are born with rights to be there - or - are you saying anyone who is born anywhere in any country has a born right to enter and live in America illegally and avail themselves of all the same rights of American citizens?


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> Can you clarify that? Are you saying that people who are born on American soil are born with rights to be there - or - are you saying anyone who is born anywhere in any country has a born right to enter and live in America illegally and avail themselves of all the same rights of American citizens?


My comment wasn't really in regards to the "right" to live in America, just rights in general. I'm not sure there is a right to live in America, but maybe a right to live in the land where you are born. That right (as all rights) would naturally extend to everyone by virtue of their being human. This isn't a fully formed idea, and it's more philosophical than "legal" in nature. But it's my way of squaring the concept of rights as "God-given" rather than granted by government. It gets dicey and there are many tough points of contention, especially when you go beyond illegal immigrants and start talking about terrorists and such. Anyway, the major point being that our nation was founded on the idea of rights endowed by a creator (or what-have-you) and a government's purpose is to protect those rights, not to hand them out as it sees fit.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> You're quite wrong as to how the SC has ruled regarding private clubs. One case pertinent to this issue involved private clubs in NYC. In that case they ruled that because the clubs allowed and even encouraged commerce by non members they were subject to the anti discrimination laws of New York. The other involved the the Boy Scouts and the court ruled that the scouts had the right to discriminate against gays. Private clubs that meet certain criteria can discriminate. Many religous organizations operate under these guidelines. Private clubs that provide public accomodations must provide those accomodations to the entire public. The SC has ruled on this and it is the current law of the land. You can choose to disagree and you can even choose to rail and fight against the status quo. None of that changes the law as it stands today.


AFAIK, no non-religious 'club' or group has been allowed to "discriminate" and then only based on their religious beliefs. The only reason religious ones are allowed is they have 'special protection' under the 1st amendment.

Can you point out ANY group which is allowed to ban members based on race?


----------



## bowdonkey

watcher said:


> AFAIK, no non-religious 'club' or group has been allowed to "discriminate" and then only based on their religious beliefs. The only reason religious ones are allowed is they have 'special protection' under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Can you point out ANY group which is allowed to ban members based on race?


The KKK, do I win a prize for that?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> AFAIK, no non-religious 'club' or group has been allowed to "discriminate" and then only based on their religious beliefs. The only reason religious ones are allowed is they have 'special protection' under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Can you point out ANY group which is allowed to ban members based on race?


Since it's difficult to find membership details on many private clubs I'll truthfully answer no. I do know that Augusta only admitted its first black member in 1990 and it's first women members in 2012. Neither was in response to a lawsuit but to financial pressures brought to bear on their signature golf event. I also know that there are four golf clubs in the Chicago area that, as of 2012, allowed no women members and in some cases no women on their grounds. My conclusion is that if gender discrimination is legal than so would discrimination based on race. A little more digging found a SC GOP member embroiled in a bit of controversy about membership in a country club with whites only deed restrictions back in 2009. You say it's not allowed. Show me the court cases that prove it.


----------



## where I want to

I discovered that California does have an anti discrimination law for business. It's called the Unruh law. So in my state it would be illegal to refuse service based on arbitrary discrimination, although I have no idea whether religious principles count as arbitrary. But of couse this is State law, not Federal, but is an example of a right that the Feds can't enforce but also can not keep the States from enforcing due to the 9th Admendment. A victory of States Rights I guess.
It is interesting that because this statute allows monitary damages where most other states allow on to have the situation corrected, 42 % of all court cases on ADA violations are incurred in California. 
There is a horrible problem locally with a lawyer who trolls businesses looking for violations of the ADA act, declares himself representing a disabled person, and sends letters demanding money to the business or he will sue. Since the amount he can get is $4000 per violation, and almost everyone can be found to have multiple violations, he has actually driven multiple businesses out of existence doing this.
Parasitic lawyers are the result of such laws. Just a warning.


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> Sorry YH, you don't have any "right" to buy anything.


This notion is absurd.... our entire economic structure is based upon commercial enterprise... the buying and selling of goods and services! The right to trade dates back to the first caveman swapping a bowl of berries for a hunk of meat. If we dont have a right to buy and sell our products or services where did it go? I dont see anyplace in the Constitution where we signed over that right to the government and an awful lot of people would be quite surprised to hear that they no longer have a right to get paid for their labor, or to be able to spend that paycheck on friday. Engaging in commerce is indeed a right of all people.


----------



## JeffreyD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This notion is absurd.... our entire economic structure is based upon commercial enterprise... the buying and selling of goods and services! The right to trade dates back to the first caveman swapping a bowl of berries for a hunk of meat. If we dont have a right to buy and sell our products or services where did it go? I dont see anyplace in the Constitution where we signed over that right to the government and an awful lot of people would be quite surprised to hear that they no longer have a right to get paid for their labor, or to be able to spend that paycheck on friday. Engaging in commerce is indeed a right of all people.


Insisting that you have a right to buy anything is absurd. You don't! It is that simple! Engaging in commerce is a different subject.


----------



## bowdonkey

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This notion is absurd.... our entire economic structure is based upon commercial enterprise... the buying and selling of goods and services! The right to trade dates back to the first caveman swapping a bowl of berries for a hunk of meat. If we dont have a right to buy and sell our products or services where did it go? I dont see anyplace in the Constitution where we signed over that right to the government and an awful lot of people would be quite surprised to hear that they no longer have a right to get paid for their labor, or to be able to spend that paycheck on friday. Engaging in commerce is indeed a right of all people.


So YH, how was that meat? I think I brushed all the maggots off of it.:gaptooth: The berries were excellent, by the way!


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This notion is absurd.... our entire economic structure is based upon commercial enterprise... the buying and selling of goods and services! The right to trade dates back to the first caveman swapping a bowl of berries for a hunk of meat. If we dont have a right to buy and sell our products or services where did it go? I dont see anyplace in the Constitution where we signed over that right to the government and an awful lot of people would be quite surprised to hear that they no longer have a right to get paid for their labor, or to be able to spend that paycheck on friday. Engaging in commerce is indeed a right of all people.


Lets change trade/sell to something else and you tell me if you agree. You have the right to free speech but you do not have the right to make someone listen to you. The reverse it also true. If someone wants to hear what you have to say they do not have the right to force you to talk to them. 

Now do you agree with the above?

Now let's put your "right" to trade in there. You have the right to trade but you do not have the right to make someone trade with you. The reverse it also true. If someone wants what you have they have no right to force you to trade with them.

Do you get it now?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Lets change trade/sell to something else and you tell me if you agree. You have the right to free speech but you do not have the right to make someone listen to you. The reverse it also true. If someone wants to hear what you have to say they do not have the right to force you to talk to them.
> 
> Now do you agree with the above?
> 
> Now let's put your "right" to trade in there. You have the right to trade but you do not have the right to make someone trade with you. The reverse it also true. If someone wants what you have they have no right to force you to trade with them.
> 
> Do you get it now?


Not that simple. The government is allowed to put restrictions ( laws) on how we do business and with who. You can not sell guns from a gun shop without a background check. They can also put restrictions on how and where you exercise your free speech. No yelling fire in a crowded theater type thing.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This notion is absurd.... our entire economic structure is based upon commercial enterprise... the buying and selling of goods and services! The right to trade dates back to the first caveman swapping a bowl of berries for a hunk of meat. If we dont have a right to buy and sell our products or services where did it go? I dont see anyplace in the Constitution where we signed over that right to the government and an awful lot of people would be quite surprised to hear that they no longer have a right to get paid for their labor, or to be able to spend that paycheck on friday. Engaging in commerce is indeed a right of all people.


Well now you're just being completely nonsensical. Our economic system is indeed based upon commerce, but it's VOLUNTARY commerce. That means both sides of the exchange are WILLING participants and you know that. No seller has a right to a buyer and no buyer has a right to a seller. Similar to the equal opportunity does not mean equal results argument. Everybody has a right to TRY to engage in commerce, but there is no guarantee of success at such endeavors.

There are some interesting inverse corollaries here to the arguments against the healthcare insurance individual mandate. I suppose if it's OK for the government to force us to buy a product, it is also OK for the government to force us to sell a product. But in my view, neither is acceptable.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Not that simple. The government is allowed to put restrictions ( laws) on how we do business and with who. You can not sell guns from a gun shop without a background check. They can also put restrictions on how and where you exercise your free speech. No yelling fire in a crowded theater type thing.


I agree there must be restrictions on all rights but only when exercising those rights effect another's rights and even then those restrictions should be as small as possible. I'll use your classic yelling fire in a crowded theater. The yelling of fire in a theater is not completely and totally banned. IOW, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater at times. It is only restricted when you yell it for the purpose of causing a panic. 

If you want to stand on the street corner and talk to people passing by about the advantages of eating a vegetarian diet you should have that right as long as you are not trying to MAKE people listen to you nor are gathering a large enough crowd to interfere with people who want to walk by. Each of those actions would result in the rights of others being affected. Do you agree? Now let's say its the same corner but a different day and a different speaker. He is not trying to make people listen to what he is saying and he is not gathering a large crowd. The only difference is he is talking to people about the advantages of keeping the races separated and how he can show that his race is better than all the rest. Should he have that right? 


But that's not the main issue here. The issue here is does the government have the power to force you to act and specifically act in a way which goes against your personal beliefs? Do you think the government should have the power to force you to listen to someone if you do not want to hear what they have to say? Or to force someone to speak to you if they do not want to?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I agree there must be restrictions on all rights but only when exercising those rights effect another's rights and even then those restrictions should be as small as possible. IMO, if you want to stand on the street corner and talk to people passing by about the advantages of eating a vegetarian diet you should have that right as long as you are not trying to MAKE people listen to you nor are gathering a large enough crowd to interfere with people who want to walk by. Each of those actions would result in the rights of others being affected. Do you agree? Now let's say its the same corner but a different day and a different speaker. He is not trying to make people listen to what he is saying and he is not gathering a large crowd. The only difference is he is talking to people about the advantages of keeping the races separated and how he can show that his race is better than all the rest. Should he have that right?
> 
> 
> But that's not the main issue here. The issue here is does the government have the power to force you to act and specifically act in a way which goes against your personal beliefs? Do you think the government should have the power to force you to listen to someone if you do not want to hear what they have to say? Or to force someone to speak to you if they do not want to?


The baker is already selling wedding cakes and they don't have the right to ask what the wedding cake is for. No one is forcing them to do something they are not already doing.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> The baker is already selling wedding cakes and they don't have the right to ask what the wedding cake is for. No one is forcing them to do something they are not already doing.


In keeping with the spirit of the thread, let me throw out a crazy hypothetical....

Say prostitution is legal (I guess this isn't totally hypothetical, since it is legal in a few counties in Nevada). Should prostitutes be required to provide their services to anyone who wishes to purchase them? Or should they have the freedom not to accept certain customers?


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> In keeping with the spirit of the thread, let me throw out a crazy hypothetical....
> 
> Say prostitution is legal (I guess this isn't totally hypothetical, since it is legal in a few counties in Nevada). Should prostitutes be required to provide their services to anyone who wishes to purchase them? Or should they have the freedom not to accept certain customers?


Crazy hypothetical is correct. I would think that any prostitute that was taken to court for this would win as "intimate service" are not the same as selling a product.

Next scenario! 

Please note a I have posted a few times, I think the baker could also win if they posted that they do not provide wedding cakes for same sex couples and made an effort to make sure they did not provide any product for a same sex wedding.


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> Insisting that you have a right to buy anything is absurd. You don't! It is that simple! Engaging in commerce is a different subject.


OK, please explain to me how one can engage in commerce with out a buyer for a good or service?! By definition in order to engage in commerce someone has to buy what someone else has for sale.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> The baker is already selling wedding cakes and they don't have the right to ask what the wedding cake is for. No one is forcing them to do something they are not already doing.


I noticed how you failed to answer my questions. So I'll ask you again. Do you think the government should have the power to force you to listen to something you don't want to? How about tell someone something you don't want them to hear?


Let's keep with my speech example. 

Say you had been on the corner telling people about the benefits of a vegetarian life style but you had gotten tired and were heading home. Someone comes up and tells you they would like for you to tell them about it. Do they have the right to FORCE you to tell them? After all they would not be forcing you to do something you were not already doing. Isn't that just the same?

The entire thread is about how much power you think the government should have. Giving governments power if a VERY dangerous thing. History is full of examples. I posted a few in another msg not that long ago.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Lets change trade/sell to something else and you tell me if you agree. You have the right to free speech but you do not have the right to make someone listen to you. The reverse it also true. If someone wants to hear what you have to say they do not have the right to force you to talk to them.
> 
> Now do you agree with the above?
> 
> Now let's put your "right" to trade in there. You have the right to trade but you do not have the right to make someone trade with you. The reverse it also true. If someone wants what you have they have no right to force you to trade with them.
> 
> Do you get it now?


I understand your position quite well.... I also understand that a judge is most likely to find that you are in violation of numerous laws and codes if you refuse to sell me your house at your asking price because my religeous beliefs differ from yours.
Pretty sure he/she would start with the federal fair housing act and work down from there.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK, please explain to me how one can engage in commerce with out a buyer for a good or service?! By definition in order to engage in commerce someone has to buy what someone else has for sale.


But you have no "right" to commerce. If you don't believe me ask any of the thousands of people who have had businesses fail because people would not buy what they wanted to sale. 

Let us apply simple logic to this.

To have commerce you must have sellers and buyers. If one of those are missing then you do not have commerce. Do you agree with those two statements?

You may have the right to offer your goods for sale at the price you want and TO THE PEOPLE you want but you don't have the right to force people to buy them. And as stated above without buyers you do not have commerce. 

You also may have the right to offer to buy goods for sale at the price you want and FROM THE PEOPLE you want but you do not have the right to force someone to sell them to you. As as stated above w/o sellers you do not have commerce.

Therefore you clearly do not have the "right" to commerce. You may have the right to attempt to engage in commerce but that's another question.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I noticed how you failed to answer my questions. So I'll ask you again. Do you think the government should have the power to force you to listen to something you don't want to? How about tell someone something you don't want them to hear?
> 
> 
> Let's keep with my speech example.
> 
> Say you had been on the corner telling people about the benefits of a vegetarian life style but you had gotten tired and were heading home. Someone comes up and tells you they would like for you to tell them about it. Do they have the right to FORCE you to tell them? After all they would not be forcing you to do something you were not already doing. Isn't that just the same?
> 
> The entire thread is about how much power you think the government should have. Giving governments power if a VERY dangerous thing. History is full of examples. I posted a few in another msg not that long ago.


I don't answer many of your questions because I don't find them pertinent. We are talking commerce here not free speech.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I noticed how you failed to answer my questions. So I'll ask you again. Do you think the government should have the power to force you to listen to something you don't want to? How about tell someone something you don't want them to hear?
> 
> 
> Let's keep with my speech example.
> 
> Say you had been on the corner telling people about the benefits of a vegetarian life style but you had gotten tired and were heading home. Someone comes up and tells you they would like for you to tell them about it. Do they have the right to FORCE you to tell them? After all they would not be forcing you to do something you were not already doing. Isn't that just the same?
> 
> The entire thread is about how much power you think the government should have. Giving governments power if a VERY dangerous thing. History is full of examples. I posted a few in another msg not that long ago.


No they can't. At that point I am closed for business. Just as if I had my doors closed and locked. I could voluntarily open the doors and tell you my tale or I could tell you to come back tomorrow when I open again and start speaking.

No one is giving the government any power. No one with a badge forced these people to start a bakery. No one forced them to open their doors to the public. No one forced them to offer wedding cakes for sale to the public they invited into the store. No one forces the public to walk into their store and purchase their wedding cakes. All the government does is provide a consistent definition of public. If one doesn't wish to sell their goods and services to the public then don't be open to the public. I've pointed out before that private clubs may discriminate. Don't want to sell wedding cakes for gays then open up a private , members only bakery and close it to the public. Set your membership rules and abide by them.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> I don't answer many of your questions because I don't find them pertinent. We are talking commerce here not free speech.


Sure about that?



> Do you believe in *personal freedom* or not?


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Sure about that?


This habit that you so seem to like of just parsing out the words you like in a post to support what seems to be a need to try and push buttons does not change his original post.

It was all about business and personal freedom. Did you forget that?


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> This habit that you so seem to like of just parsing out the words you like in a post to support what seems to be a need *to try and push buttons* does not change his original post.


It got a response, did it not?



painterswife said:


> It was all about business and *personal freedom. *Did you forget that?


Is free speech not a personal freedom? :huh:


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> It got a response, did it not?
> 
> 
> 
> Is free speech not a personal freedom? :huh:


It is not the personal freedom that I have been discussing and I feel no need to muddy the discussion by answering hypothetical that go off on a tangent.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> It is not the personal freedom that I have been discussing and *I feel no need to muddy the discussion by answering hypothetical that go off on a tangent.*


Questions like this [post #2 in this thread]?



painterswife said:


> Would you be fine if Muslims bought all the oil companies and decided that no one but Muslims can buy gas?



...


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Questions like this [post #2 in this thread]?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All about commerce. Right on topic.


----------



## Vash

Stones in a glass house...


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK, please explain to me how one can engage in commerce with out a buyer for a good or service?! By definition in order to engage in commerce someone has to buy what someone else has for sale.


So if nobody wants to buy what someone wants to sell, the government can enforce the seller's "right" to engage in commerce by making someone buy his product?


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Crazy hypothetical is correct. I would think that any prostitute that was taken to court for this would win as "intimate service" are not the same as selling a product.


I think a case could be made that a service is a service, intimate nature being irrelevant. Not sure I would buy it (ETA: the argument, not the service) but maybe....


----------



## dixiegal62

jtbrandt said:


> So if nobody wants to buy what someone wants to sell, the government can enforce the seller's "right" to engage in commerce by making someone buy his product?


Obamacare, light bulbs


----------



## painterswife

xxxxxxxxx


----------



## unregistered353870

dixiegal62 said:


> Obamacare, light bulbs


Trying to get him to see the error in his thinking by leading him to that slowly, but he ignores my posts...I suspect he knows he's wrong, but can't admit it.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I don't answer many of your questions because I don't find them pertinent. We are talking commerce here not free speech.


Ah, no. We are talking about freedom, personal freedom. The freedom to think how you wish, the freedom to act on your thinking as long as it doesn't affect another's rights, the freedom to control your private property, the freedom to not have the government force you to do things you do not wish to do by using the reason of 'because its the politically correct thing to do'. 

I switch to speech because its specifically mentioned in the USC. And you can easily switch speech to controlling your private property because they are both rights.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> No one is giving the government any power. No one with a badge forced these people to start a bakery. No one forced them to open their doors to the public. No one forced them to offer wedding cakes for sale to the public they invited into the store. No one forces the public to walk into their store and purchase their wedding cakes. All the government does is provide a consistent definition of public. If one doesn't wish to sell their goods and services to the public then don't be open to the public. I've pointed out before that private clubs may discriminate. Don't want to sell wedding cakes for gays then open up a private , members only bakery and close it to the public. Set your membership rules and abide by them.


I forget if you are Canadian or not but it really doesn't matter a lot. Do you think the government of either nation would allow you to open a 'private' restaurant and have sign on the front that said "Blacks and dogs not allowed!"?


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> I forget if you are Canadian or not but it really doesn't matter a lot. Do you think the government of either nation would allow you to open a 'private' restaurant and have sign on the front that said "Blacks and dogs not allowed!"?


The sign would not be allowed but if it's private there would be no need for a sign stating to the public who is or is not suitable patronage. Private enterprises don't advertise to the public and they don't have open doors.


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> In keeping with the spirit of the thread, let me throw out a crazy hypothetical....
> 
> Say prostitution is legal (I guess this isn't totally hypothetical, since it is legal in a few counties in Nevada). Should prostitutes be required to provide their services to anyone who wishes to purchase them? Or should they have the freedom not to accept certain customers?


Prostitution is legal in many places. It isn't a public service, it's a private service. Therefore, the prostitute and/or the prostitute's manager has the freedom to be selective about who is accepted as customers.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> Prostitution is legal in many places. It isn't a public service, it's a private service. Therefore, the prostitute or the prostitute's manager has the freedom to be selective about who is accepted as customers.


Is baking a public service? If so, what makes it so? The brothels in Nevada have signs out front just the same as bakeries do.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> But you have no "right" to commerce. If you don't believe me ask any of the thousands of people who have had businesses fail because people would not buy what they wanted to sale.
> 
> Let us apply simple logic to this.
> 
> To have commerce you must have sellers and buyers. If one of those are missing then you do not have commerce. Do you agree with those two statements?
> 
> You may have the right to offer your goods for sale at the price you want and TO THE PEOPLE you want but you don't have the right to force people to buy them. And as stated above without buyers you do not have commerce.
> 
> You also may have the right to offer to buy goods for sale at the price you want and FROM THE PEOPLE you want but you do not have the right to force someone to sell them to you. As as stated above w/o sellers you do not have commerce.
> 
> Therefore you clearly do not have the "right" to commerce. You may have the right to attempt to engage in commerce but that's another question.


I agree that no one is supposed to be able to force anyone to buy any product they don't want..... which is my primary objection to "O"care... however I must disagree with your opinion that a seller who offers their product for sale to the general public has any right to pick and choose who can buy that product based upon race, color, religion, creed, sex or ethnicity etc.... you either have a product for sale or you don't. I am also pretty sure that the courts will agree with my position in a case that push comes to shove and ends up being decided by a judge.


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> Is baking a public service? If so, what makes it so? The brothels in Nevada have signs out front just the same as bakeries do.


Baking is a public service if it is open to the general public and is advertising its services to the public. If a baker is operating a private business they are not open to the public and they won't be advertising to the public, they are advertising to select clientele of their own choosing.

The brothels in Nevada are private enterprises with owners, managers and a variety of employees/staff persons with various duties who are hired by the owners or managers and are paid a salary for the work they do, that salary being paid to them by the business owner. The brothels may have advertising for the business but the business is not open to the general public and any transactions that occur are done by appointment and payment for the services rendered is made to the manager. If the manager does not approve of a prospective client the manger can refuse to provide services of the house.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> So if nobody wants to buy what someone wants to sell, the government can enforce the seller's "right" to engage in commerce by making someone buy his product?


Nope... unless its obamacare which somehow has managed to escape any form of logic, no one should ever be forced to buy any product they do not want. The seller simply needs to find a product the people wish to buy.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope... unless its obamacare which somehow has managed to escape any form of logic, no one should ever be forced to buy any product they do not want. The seller simply needs to find a product the people wish to buy.


Why doesn't that go both ways? Buyers have a right to commerce but sellers don't?


----------



## farmrbrown

At this point (the last few posts) it should be obvious by now that the restrictions on freedom may start out with a degree of reasonableness, for instance laws that punish you when your activities do serious harm to others.
But there's just no stopping some folks, when it comes to telling others what they can and can't do.
We actually have people who honestly believe that they should be able to force you to sell them a cake.........but can easily justify why some other sale of product or service should be exempt.
IOW completely arbitrary and void of reason.
That's just how some people are.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> The brothels in Nevada are private enterprises with owners, managers and a variety of employees/staff persons with various duties who are hired by the owners or managers and are paid a salary for the work they do, that salary being paid to them by the business owner.


So are bakeries...I thought you were explaining the differences to me.



> The brothels may have advertising for the business but *the business is not open to the general public* and any transactions that occur are done by appointment and payment for the services rendered is made to the manager.


Do you have anything to back this up? Real question, as I really don't know. I don't understand how they get customers if they are not open to the public to the same extent a bakery is.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> Why doesn't that go both ways? Buyers have a right to commerce but sellers don't?


I'm pretty sure it does work both ways. As a buyer I have often wished some company would offer a product that I wanted for a price I can afford... but so far have not found anyone willing to sell me a 1980 Cadillac.... brand new for a thousand bucks. Nor have I been able to find any lawyer willing to persue the case on my behalf. IE... I cannot force GM to build me one.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm pretty sure it does work both ways. As a buyer I have often wished some company would offer a product that I wanted for a price I can afford... but so far have not found anyone willing to sell me a 1980 Cadillac.... brand new for a thousand bucks. Nor have I been able to find any lawyer willing to persue the case on my behalf. IE... *I cannot force GM to build me one.*


But you can force a baker to make you a cake for your wedding?


----------



## farmrbrown

jtbrandt said:


> So are bakeries...I thought you were explaining the differences to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything to back this up? Real question, as I really don't know. I don't understand how they get customers if they are not open to the public to the same extent a bakery is.




Stroll thru this link, interesting facts from Nevada.....

http://web.unlv.edu/projects/sabir/PDFs/socpersp.pdf


Start around p. 318 and read thru 327.


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> So are bakeries...I thought you were explaining the differences to me.
> 
> Do you have anything to back this up? Real question, as I really don't know. I don't understand how they get customers if they are not open to the public to the same extent a bakery is.


A parent with a 6 y.o. child and a baby in a pram can walk into a public bakery with the children and make purchases of baked goods that are prepared and on display. While there in the store the parent might also make arrangements to commission a birthday cake or wedding cake to be made. That bakery is a public business open to the public and anyone can walk into it.

Do you think that same parent with the children would be allowed to walk into a brothel to check out the goods on display? The parent with children wouldn't get a foot in the front door - the door keeper would stop them at the door because it's a private enterprise and minors are not allowed on the premises. The parent without children could go in the front door (if the door keeper decides the parent isn't drunk and disorderly) and then be greeted by the manager who will then decide whether or not the parent is suitable as a prospective customer. The brothel is a private business that advertises its private services any way it wants to. It's open to private customers only at the discretion of the door keeper and the manager, sometimes by advance appointment only, and not everyone who wants to can walk into it.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> But you can force a baker to make you a cake for your wedding?


Nope .... at least not for a dime... which is about comparable to the caddy for a grand. I do however expect that bakery to sell me a cake of similar quality at the same price they they sell every one else if I have the purchase price in hand. I also would expect GM via one of their authorized dealerships to sell me a new caddy for their "going" price regardless of my possible uses for it.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> A parent with a 6 y.o. child and a baby in a pram can walk into a public bakery with the children and make purchases of baked goods that are prepared and on display. While there in the store the parent might also make arrangements to commission a birthday cake or wedding cake to be made. That bakery is a public business open to the public and anyone can walk into it.
> 
> Do you think that same parent with the children would be allowed to walk into a brothel to check out the goods on display? The parent with children wouldn't get a foot in the front door - the door keeper would stop them at the door because it's a private enterprise and minors are not allowed on the premises. The parent without children could go in the front door (if the door keeper decides the parent isn't drunk and disorderly) and then be greeted by the manager who will then decide whether or not the parent is suitable as a prospective customer. The brothel is a private business that advertises its private services any way it wants to. It's open to private customers only at the discretion of the door keeper and the manager, sometimes by advance appointment only, and not everyone who wants to can walk into it.


In other words...no, you have nothing to back it up except your own suppositions.

Reading the link provided above showed you to be wrong about several things regarding brothels in Nevada. For one, the prostitutes are independent contractors and their customers make their agreements with the girl and pay her directly. And they are open to the public...obviously not to children, but that's a red herring so I won't bother with it. 

The more I learn about prostitution, the more I think my offhand hypothetical actually applies.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope .... at least not for a dime... which is about comparable to the caddy for a grand. I do however expect that bakery to sell me a cake of similar quality at the same price they they sell every one else if I have the purchase price in hand. I also would expect GM via one of their authorized dealerships to sell me a new caddy for their "going" price regardless of my possible uses for it.


OK, so switching back to the other side...say you don't like gays and are ordering a cake from a baker, but before the contract is finalized you learn he's gay and decide you would rather buy your cake elsewhere. Can the government force you to buy your cake from the gay baker? After all, you were buying a cake anyway...they're not forcing you to do something you weren't going to do; they're only saying who you must buy it from.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> OK, so switching back to the other side...say you don't like gays and are ordering a cake from a baker, but before the contract is finalized you learn he's gay and decide you would rather buy your cake elsewhere. Can the government force you to buy your cake from the gay baker? After all, you were buying a cake anyway...they're not forcing you to do something you weren't going to do; they're only saying who you must buy it from.


This would depend upon your definition of "the contract being finalised". Do you mean that both customer and baker came to a meeting of the minds.... this type cake, this price, to be picked up or delivered on such and such date..and agreed to by both parties? You of course would be obligated to pay for said cake. In that case the contract itself was finalised when both parties agreed to the terms. The terms of the contract need not be fulfilled to make the contract legal and binding. Feel free to purchase another cake from whomever you like... but this one must also be paid for.


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> In other words...no, you have nothing to back it up except your own suppositions.
> 
> Reading the link provided above showed you to be wrong about several things regarding brothels in Nevada. For one, the prostitutes are independent contractors and their customers make their agreements with the girl and pay her directly. And they are open to the public...obviously not to children, but that's a red herring so I won't bother with it.
> 
> The more I learn about prostitution, the more I think my offhand hypothetical actually applies.


No, I wasn't making suppositions and I wasn't only talking about brothels in Nevada. As a women's advocate, including being an advocate for female sex trade workers (prostitution is legal in my country but brothels are not legal yet - that's in front of the courts right now) I know quite a bit about the industry. I'm backed up with some rather extensive knowledge about the issues involved with prostitution and the operations of illegal but properly and very professionally managed high end brothels right here.

I read that article about Nevada too. It's only about prostitution and brothels in Nevada, it doesn't have anything there about how prostitution and brothels are run in other places, including in other countries where some high end businesses have been legally in operation for many, many decades. Also, that article is 13 years old so it's out of date and a lot of things have changed in Nevada since then. Somebody here posted a topic about it here in GC about 5 or 6 years ago along with several informational links about the practices and professional changes that have been made. Many of the out-dated moral restrictions that were mentioned in the above PDF article from 2001 have been loosened and many new regulations have been put in place. Including that Nevada now allows some select brothels to have male prostitutes and several of them now have male body-guards and other male staff permitted to work in them. Going by what was in that PDF article though I'd have to say it sounds like some of the brothels in Nevada were a joke, rather amateurish, some corrupt and not as professional and high end as they could be.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yes, but they ARE a licensed business (proprietor, self-employed, etc.) who DO discriminate and are allowed to do so by the very government that sells them their business license. In fact, if they DON'T discriminate, by age, health for instance, they can be shut down for not doing so.
Quite the conundrum, eh?


----------



## Paumon

That very discrimination (age, health, gender and race - and for men only, not allowing women to be customers in Nevada - were mentioned as examples) is one of the things that makes it a private rather than a public business.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This would depend upon your definition of "the contract being finalised". Do you mean that both customer and baker came to a meeting of the minds.... this type cake, this price, to be picked up or delivered on such and such date..and agreed to by both parties? You of course would be obligated to pay for said cake. In that case the contract itself was finalised when both parties agreed to the terms. The terms of the contract need not be fulfilled to make the contract legal and binding. Feel free to purchase another cake from whomever you like... but this one must also be paid for.


I completely disagree with you, and that's by your own definition of what must be bought and sold. You're constantly saying that an individual, acting as "the public", can more or less force any business owner to do what they don't want to do. So, if a person chose to order something but then changed their mind, why, it's all the business owner's fault and that's tough.


----------



## homstdr74

BTW: in case this thread, which is over 1,000 posts long, has buried the original case to the extent that few can remember the details, here's a link to an article about the refusal to bake a cake that has so many in a snit:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-to-Go-to-Jail-for-Declining-Gay-Wedding-Cake

What is largely being forgotten is that freedom of religion, which *IS* a right named in our Constitution, is being buried by a bleeping cake!!!!!!!!


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> BTW: in case this thread, which is over 1,000 posts long, has buried the original case to the extent that few can remember the details, here's a link to an article about the refusal to bake a cake that has so many in a snit:
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-to-Go-to-Jail-for-Declining-Gay-Wedding-Cake
> 
> What is largely being forgotten is that freedom of religion, which *IS* a right named in our Constitution, is being buried by a bleeping cake!!!!!!!!


And as it has been pointed religous and other private organizations can discriminate. The answer is simple. If a bakery wishes to not sell wedding cakes to any member of the public, don't open to the public. Operate as a private, members only club, and sell only to those who meet your membership standards. It solves the problem of even inadvertently providing a cake to those you or your beliefs disapprove of, but it might also limit your business. You're free to make the decision yourself.


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> I completely disagree with you, and that's by your own definition of what must be bought and sold. You're constantly saying that an individual, acting as "the public", can more or less force any business owner to do what they don't want to do. So, if a person chose to order something but then changed their mind, why, it's all the business owner's fault and that's tough.


In this example it depends upon how the contract for the cake was written. Most such contracts include a non refundable deposit which the baker is free to keep no matter the reason or timing of the cancellation. In addition most such contracts provide for payment in full if the order is cancelled within a certain period. If the business did not take these contractual precautions they got exactly what the agreed to. If they did they are financially protected from the whims of their customer. The business is free to decide how it wishes to do business but has no less power than the customer in this case.


----------



## painterswife

I think this all boils down to one thing.

*Do you believe that there should be no conditions on a personal freedom.

or

Do you believe that there can be conditions on a personal freedom.*

I believe that there has to sometimes be conditions or people would use their personal freedom to hurt others.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> I think this all boils down to one thing.
> 
> *Do you believe that there should be no conditions on a personal freedom.
> 
> or
> 
> Do you believe that there can be conditions on a personal freedom.*
> 
> I believe that there has to sometimes be conditions or people would use their personal freedom to hurt others.


The conditions are adequately spelled out here:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment I: *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> And as it has been pointed religous and other private organizations can discriminate. The answer is simple. If a bakery wishes to not sell wedding cakes to any member of the public, don't open to the public. Operate as a private, members only club, and sell only to those who meet your membership standards. It solves the problem of even inadvertently providing a cake to those you or your beliefs disapprove of, but it might also limit your business. You're free to make the decision yourself.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;* or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

BTW: To argue that all religious practices must only take place in houses of worship was the beginning argument that Lenin used before his followers, Uncle Joe especially, banned most of religion and occasionally used the churches for horse stables.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> In this example it depends upon how the contract for the cake was written. Most such contracts include a non refundable deposit which the baker is free to keep no matter the reason or timing of the cancellation. In addition most such contracts provide for payment in full if the order is cancelled within a certain period. If the business did not take these contractual precautions they got exactly what the agreed to. If they did they are financially protected from the whims of their customer. The business is free to decide how it wishes to do business but has no less power than the customer in this case.


Yes, my uncle was a lawyer. He taught me to never trust lawyers, and I've followed his advice.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, but they ARE a licensed business (proprietor, self-employed, etc.) who DO discriminate and are allowed to do so by the very government that sells them their business license. In fact, if they DON'T discriminate, by age, health for instance, they can be shut down for not doing so.
> Quite the conundrum, eh?


Actually, not a conundrum at all as it comes to qualifying their customers as to things like health and age. These are the conditions they agreed on when applying for and accepting a license to operate as a legal business. No more of a conundrum than a legally licensed cigarette seller not selling to minors or a bar with a liquor license not selling to 16 year olds. While I have issues with the current, "federally mandated", drinking age of 21 I don't see it as any more of an imposition on a business owner's freedom to operate their business than the requirement that if their doors are open to the public, they be open to all the public.


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> Yes, my uncle was a lawyer. He taught me to never trust lawyers, and I've followed his advice.


It's America. You just need to work hard enough to be able to afford the best lawyer.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> It's America. You just need to work hard enough to be able to afford the best lawyer.


My uncle was the best. The stuff he got away with convinced me that any of these shenanigans that lawyers pull only make a mockery of our Constitution. If you believe so much in the abilities of a lawyer to twist the wording of our Constitution to suit their needs, why should we have a Constitution at all? 

You know, during the last days of Rome a wealthy Roman citizen wouldn't dare walk the street without at least two lawyers with him at all times.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> Actually, not a conundrum at all as it comes to qualifying their customers as to things like health and age. These are the conditions they agreed on when applying for and accepting a license to operate as a legal business. No more of a conundrum than a legally licensed cigarette seller not selling to minors or a bar with a liquor license not selling to 16 year olds. While I have issues with the current, "federally mandated", drinking age of 21 I don't see it as any more of an imposition on a business owner's freedom to operate their business than the requirement that if their doors are open to the public, they be open to all the public.


 
A business license is nothing more than agreeing to pay taxes on your income from the business. I can't speak for bars or store that sell cigarettes but in order to be legal selling candles and soap I had to pay taxes on my expected income for the year. Nowhere on that license was any agreement on who I sold to. Same with our painting company.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> A business license is nothing more than agreeing to pay taxes on your income from the business. I can't speak for bars or store that sell cigarettes but in order to be legal selling candles and soap I had to pay taxes on my expected income for the year. Nowhere on that license was any agreement on who I sold to. Same with our painting company.


In this case we were discussing licensed brothels. That license clearly sets out the requirements the business must follow to maintain that license just as a license issued to a business to allow the sale of liquor or cigarettes does. These are licenses issued separately from other business license and tax numbers.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This would depend upon your definition of "the contract being finalised". Do you mean that both customer and baker came to a meeting of the minds.... this type cake, this price, to be picked up or delivered on such and such date..and agreed to by both parties? You of course would be obligated to pay for said cake. In that case the contract itself was finalised when both parties agreed to the terms. The terms of the contract need not be fulfilled to make the contract legal and binding. Feel free to purchase another cake from whomever you like... but this one must also be paid for.


So, what I'm getting from you is that buyers have rights that sellers do not. Is that accurate?


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> No, I wasn't making suppositions and I wasn't only talking about brothels in Nevada. As a women's advocate, including being an advocate for female sex trade workers (prostitution is legal in my country but brothels are not legal yet - that's in front of the courts right now) I know quite a bit about the industry. I'm backed up with some rather extensive knowledge about the issues involved with prostitution and the operations of illegal but properly and very professionally managed high end brothels right here.
> 
> I read that article about Nevada too. It's only about prostitution and brothels in Nevada, it doesn't have anything there about how prostitution and brothels are run in other places, including in other countries where some high end businesses have been legally in operation for many, many decades. Also, that article is 13 years old so it's out of date and a lot of things have changed in Nevada since then. Somebody here posted a topic about it here in GC about 5 or 6 years ago along with several informational links about the practices and professional changes that have been made. Many of the out-dated moral restrictions that were mentioned in the above PDF article from 2001 have been loosened and many new regulations have been put in place. Including that Nevada now allows some select brothels to have male prostitutes and several of them now have male body-guards and other male staff permitted to work in them. Going by what was in that PDF article though I'd have to say it sounds like some of the brothels in Nevada were a joke, rather amateurish, some corrupt and not as professional and high end as they could be.


OK, well we were specifically talking about Nevada. No other places were mentioned by name so that's what I was focusing on. I know little about Nevada's laws, but even less about the laws in other countries.

Sure, the report is dated, but the two things I posted from it are still true. Prostitutes are independent contractors and make their deals directly with the customers...sounds a lot like the way a small bakery might operate.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> That very discrimination (age, health, gender and race - and for men only, not allowing women to be customers in Nevada - were mentioned as examples) is one of the things that makes it a private rather than a public business.


This is what I'm trying to learn from you...where are getting these definitions of public versus private businesses? I don't see that distinction in our laws. All businesses here are private enterprises, except for the occasional government owned pseudo-business like the Post Office.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> So, what I'm getting from you is that buyers have rights that sellers do not. Is that accurate?


No, in this case they both have the rights spelled out in the contract. In fact, if the contract is correctly written the buyer may be forced to pay for something the seller doesn't even have to deliver. In the case of the bakery open to the public the implied contract is that the public has the right to purchase whatever is for sale.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> No, in this case they both have the rights spelled out in the contract. In fact, if the contract is correctly written the buyer may be forced to pay for something the seller doesn't even have to deliver.


We're talking pre-contract.



> In the case of the bakery open to the public the implied contract is that the public has the right to purchase whatever is for sale.


But in order to order a cake that doesn't yet exist, an additional explicit contract would need to be made.

We've established that many believe the government can force a seller to make such a contract against his will, but can they also force a buyer to make such a contract with someone said buyer does not want to buy from? If not, why not?


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> OK, well we were specifically talking about Nevada. No other places were mentioned by name so that's what I was focusing on. I know little about Nevada's laws, but even less about the laws in other countries.
> 
> Sure, the report is dated, but the two things I posted from it are still true. Prostitutes are independent contractors and make their deals directly with the customers...sounds a lot like the way a small bakery might operate.


A bakery could choose to operate this way by having a separate baker who operates as an independent contractor use their facilities. They could market the services of this baker but they could not use the baker as an employee to bake cookies and most wedding cakes and as an independent contractor only on gay wedding cakes. Labor laws are rather specific as to the relationship between a business and those it employs as independent contractors.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> A bakery could choose to operate this way by having a separate baker who operates as an independent contractor use their facilities. They could market the services of this baker but they could not use the baker as an employee to bake cookies and most wedding cakes and as an independent contractor only on gay wedding cakes. Labor laws are rather specific as to the relationship between a business and those it employs as independent contractors.


I have to admit, you lost me there. My head is spinning trying to figure out who is baking what. You win this point...for now.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> We're talking pre-contract.
> 
> 
> 
> But in order to order a cake that doesn't yet exist, an additional explicit contract would need to be made.


Once again the answer is simple. The bakery has the right to offer wedding cakes for sale to the public. The public has the right to purchase said wedding cakes. Neither has any more right than that. Don't want to sell to the public don't open your doors to the public. Don't want to buy from a bakery, don't walk in the door.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> I have to admit, you lost me there. My head is spinning trying to figure out who is baking what. You win this point...for now.


It's fairly simple if you go back to your brothel. The owner of the brothel cannot also be an independent contractor to the brothel. The prostitute cannot be an independent contractor in one instance and an employee in another instance for providing essentially the same service.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> Once again the answer is simple. The bakery has the right to offer wedding cakes for sale to the public. The public has the right to purchase said wedding cakes. Neither has any more right than that. Don't want to sell to the public don't open your doors to the public. Don't want to buy from a bakery, don't walk in the door.


They can't refuse any customers?


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> A bakery could choose to operate this way by having a separate baker who operates as an independent contractor use their facilities. They could market the services of this baker but they could not use the baker as an employee to bake cookies and most wedding cakes and as an independent contractor only on gay wedding cakes. Labor laws are rather specific as to the relationship between a business and those it employs as independent contractors.


Why would they have to use an independent contractor to operate this way. As I've said before wedding cakes are not off the shelf. They are ordered when wanted, the baker agrees to make it to their specifications the customer agrees to pay, it's a contract already.

The government cant tell a business owner what contract they have to accept and they are under no obligation to accept every contract offered to them. That's why you and you neighbor could have the exact same house and I could agree to paint the neighbors but tell you no. I don't have to have a reason. You have no right for me to paint your house even if I paint your neighbors.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> It's fairly simple if you go back to your brothel. The owner of the brothel cannot also be an independent contractor to the brothel. The prostitute cannot be an independent contractor in one instance and an employee in another instance for providing essentially the same service.


OK, I get it now. I wasn't using the brothel as the business. I was considering each prostitute as a separate business, since they are independent contractors...just like a baker who owns his own bakery is a business.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> They can't refuse any customers?


Of course they can but they should be very careful as to the grounds they use to refuse service. Otherwise we would not have this thread.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Why would they have to use an independent contractor to operate this way. As I've said before wedding cakes are not off the shelf. They are ordered when wanted, the baker agrees to make it to their specifications the customer agrees to pay, it's a contract already.
> 
> The government cant tell a business owner what contract they have to accept and they are under no obligation to accept every contract offered to them. That's why you and you neighbor could have the exact same house and I could agree to paint the neighbors but tell you no. I don't have to have a reason. You have no right for me to paint your house even if I paint your neighbors.


But in many cases they are offered as a standard design at a fixed price. Sort of like you offering to paint any 10'x10' room for a fixed price with a specific color. Any who contacts you who's room meets your specs and is happy with the color choice should expect you to paint their room at your quoted price.


----------



## Vash

mmoetc said:


> But in many cases they are offered as a standard design at a fixed price. Sort of like you offering to paint any 10'x10' room for a fixed price with a specific color. *Any who contacts you* who's room meets your specs and is happy with the color choice should expect you to paint their room at your quoted price.


She's not talking about the one's she makes a contract with. She's talking about the one's she _*refuses*_ to make a contract with. Prices don't matter at that point.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> But in many cases they are offered as a standard design at a fixed price. Sort of like you offering to paint any 10'x10' room for a fixed price with a specific color. Any who contacts you who's room meets your specs and is happy with the color choice should expect you to paint their room at your quoted price.


 
Well if that's all that's keeping bakery's from having free choice I hope they get smart and stop offering fixed rates and bid on each cake job on it's own merits. Problem solved!


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> This is what I'm trying to learn from you...where are getting these definitions of public versus private businesses? I don't see that distinction in our laws. All businesses here are private enterprises, except for the occasional government owned pseudo-business like the Post Office.


You are confusing definitions. Public sector and private sector mean different things and in this discussion we are indeed talking about private businesses. We can confuse things even further and discuss how private businesses can be publicly owned, privately owned or even publicly owned but privately held. None are germane to this discussion. What is is whether said business is deemed to be open to the public. This generally means you have provided an access or portal to your business ( real or virtual) that invites the public in to do business with you. The law is fairly clear that when you open your business to the public you open it to all of the public. I know of many businesses not open to the public. Some restrict access to holders of special licenses. Some have restrictions that I am not aware of because I have not been invited in and they are not open to the public.


----------



## Evons hubby

homstdr74 said:


> I completely disagree with you, and that's by your own definition of what must be bought and sold. You're constantly saying that an individual, acting as "the public", can more or less force any business owner to do what they don't want to do. So, if a person chose to order something but then changed their mind, why, it's all the business owner's fault and that's tough.


I am pretty sure you know that i have not said any such thing. In the post you just quoted I was quite clear about how a contract is formed only when both buyer and seller have both agreed to the terms and conditions of a sale. I also pointed out that if the buyer changed their mind they are still legally bound to fulfill their end of the bargain. The same holds true for the seller.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> Of course they can but they should be very careful as to the grounds they use to refuse service. Otherwise we would not have this thread.


The proposed law that brought this discussion about would have been a really stupid law, but so is suing people for not making you a wedding cake. But anyone can sue anyone for pretty much any reason, so being careful about the grounds used to refuse service won't really protect a businessperson from such nonsense.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> So, what I'm getting from you is that buyers have rights that sellers do not. Is that accurate?


In a word... yes.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> You are confusing definitions. Public sector and private sector mean different things and in this discussion we are indeed talking about private businesses. We can confuse things even further and discuss how private businesses can be publicly owned, privately owned or even publicly owned but privately held. None are germane to this discussion. What is is whether said business is deemed to be open to the public. This generally means you have provided an access or portal to your business ( real or virtual) that invites the public in to do business with you. The law is fairly clear that when you open your business to the public you open it to all of the public. I know of many businesses not open to the public. Some restrict access to holders of special licenses. Some have restrictions that I am not aware of because I have not been invited in and they are not open to the public.


I'm not confusing definitions....I'm being confused by apparently different definitions used by another poster. It may be due to regional language differences or differences between U.S. and Canadian business structures or something else. I don't know.

No need to school me on public and private. I know what they mean. I'm only trying to learn what the other poster means when she uses them.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In a word... yes.


I think you're wrong, but I am glad we finally reached this point where I actually clearly know your position.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> The proposed law that brought this discussion about would have been a really stupid law, but so is suing people for not making you a wedding cake. But anyone can sue anyone for pretty much any reason, so being careful about the grounds used to refuse service won't really protect a businessperson from such nonsense.


While I'll agree that suing someone over a cake seems stupid ( unless it's a really good cake) this case isn't so much about the cake as it is what grounds a business may use to refuse service which I think is a a good thing to figure out. The reality is that if you advocate someone being allowed to discriminate against those you don't like you also allow those who don't like you the same right. You might not feel the consequences of that discrimination to be so benign.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> I'm not confusing definitions....I'm being confused by apparently different definitions used by another poster. It may be due to regional language differences or differences between U.S. and Canadian business structures or something else. I don't know.
> 
> No need to school me on public and private. I know what they mean. I'm only trying to learn what the other poster means when she uses them.


Wasn't trying to be insulting, just trying to clarify definitions.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> I think you're wrong, but I am glad we finally reached this point where I actually clearly know your position.


Well, sellers are often subject to government regulations depending upon the product being sold... buyers on the other hand are not subject to those same regulations. Most states prohibit the sale of raw milk.... yet there seems to be no penalty for buying or consuming said product.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> While I'll agree that suing someone over a cake seems stupid ( unless it's a really good cake) this case isn't so much about the cake as it is what grounds a business may use to refuse service which I think is a a good thing to figure out. The reality is that if you advocate someone being allowed to discriminate against those you don't like you also allow those who don't like you the same right. You might not feel the consequences of that discrimination to be so benign.


For the record, I personally don't dislike gay people (in general anyway...there are a few I don't care for). I would not do business with someone who discriminates in this way. I understand that they believe it's the right thing to do because of their religion, but I believe it's the right thing to not give them my business.

But just because an action hurts a person's or a group's feelings or inconveniences them does not mean the government should sanction the person who did it. I was once discriminated against by a restaurant where I did not meet the dress code. I was embarrassed and angry for a few minutes, but I got over it and ate somewhere else.

And I don't think this kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation is benign. I think it's terrible for our society, but forcing people to "be nice" isn't going to make society better...changing people's hearts so they choose to be nice is the way to do it. I think that's happening more and more these days and it gives me hope for the future. Force only sets that back, because people resist being forced.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, sellers are often subject to government regulations depending upon the product being sold... buyers on the other hand are not subject to those same regulations. Most states prohibit the sale of raw milk.... yet there seems to be no penalty for buying or consuming said product.


I'm not sure that's a valid example because I think buying raw milk is also illegal in those states, but in any case I don't think the existence of regulations proves anything. Remember, my position is that neither buyer nor seller has a right to a transactional counterpart. You are the one arguing that the buyer does have that right (assuming one exists) but the seller does not.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> For the record, I personally don't dislike gay people (in general anyway...there are a few I don't care for). I would not do business with someone who discriminates in this way. I understand that they believe it's the right thing to do because of their religion, but I believe it's the right thing to not give them my business.
> 
> But just because an action hurts a person's or a group's feelings or inconveniences them does not mean the government should sanction the person who did it. I was once discriminated against by a restaurant where I did not meet the dress code. I was embarrassed and angry for a few minutes, but I got over it and ate somewhere else.
> 
> And I don't think this kind of discrimination is benign. I think it's terrible for our society, but forcing people to "be nice" isn't going to make society better...changing people's hearts so they choose to be nice is the way to do it. I think that's happening more and more these days and it gives me hope for the future. Force only sets that back, because people resist being forced.


Not meeting a dress code is quite different than being denied because of your skin tone or sexuality. One can be fixed by adding a tie. I agree that people resist being forced and I also have hope that things are getting better. I also know that some people will only go forward by being dragged kicking and screaming.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> Not meeting a dress code is quite different than being denied because of your skin tone or sexuality. One can be fixed by adding a tie. I agree that people resist being forced and I also have hope that things are getting better. I also know that some people will only go forward by being dragged kicking and screaming.


Or dying and getting out of the way.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> While I'll agree that suing someone over a cake seems stupid ( unless it's a really good cake) this case isn't so much about the cake as it is what grounds a business may use to refuse service which I think is a a good thing to figure out. The reality is that if you advocate someone being allowed to discriminate against those you don't like you also allow those who don't like you the same right. You might not feel the consequences of that discrimination to be so benign.


 
Your assuming because a baker doesn't want to make their wedding cake he doesn't like gays and because I feel he should have the freedom to make that choice I don't like gays. It's not about liking or not liking anyone.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> While I'll agree that suing someone over a cake seems stupid ( unless it's a really good cake) this case isn't so much about the cake as it is what grounds a business may use to refuse service which I think is a a good thing to figure out. The reality is that if you advocate someone being allowed to discriminate against those you don't like you also allow those who don't like you the same right. You might not feel the consequences of that discrimination to be so benign.


I've been the subject of discrimination my entire life! I keep getting pushed to the back of the line because I'm white. I've been told constantly that minorities need to have an advantage so we need to make exceptions for them, but it comes with a high price to pay, they've become the gimmedats, expecting everything to be givin to them without question. I've become a business owner and make a decent living for our family, despite the obstacles put in my way because I'm white. The point is i'm not going to get the vapors and piddle in my pants if someone doesn't want to sell me something. It's their right! I don't have the right to force them to sell me anything either. To think otherwise is foolish. Discrimination will never, ever go away. Sueing for not baking a cake is the height of idiocy and the product of the entitlement generation, and looking for their 15 minutes of "fame" by saying " look at us, we're gay and we're going to shove it your face because we can, and if you don't accept our deviant way of life, we'll make sure your type will suffer. That's exactly what happened in this case.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> Or dying and getting out of the way.


As long as they don't take that great cake recipe to the grave.

Edited to add - thanks for the civil discussion.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> Not meeting a dress code is quite different than being denied because of your skin tone or sexuality. One can be fixed by adding a tie. I agree that people resist being forced and I also have hope that things are getting better. I also know that some people will only go forward by being dragged kicking and screaming.


Go forward to where? Discrimination will never stop. If your white and live in Los Angeles, going down to MLK blvd anytime, day or night, will not be in your best interest. If you go to West Los Angeles, the gays WILL single you out and taunt you for being in "their" world. That will never change. It's just so easy NOT to participate in their discrimination, so I don't!


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> I'm not sure that's a valid example because I think buying raw milk is also illegal in those states, but in any case I don't think the existence of regulations proves anything. Remember, my position is that neither buyer nor seller has a right to a transactional counterpart. You are the one arguing that the buyer does have that right (assuming one exists) but the seller does not.


Liberty... the right to do as one pleases as long as it doesn't infringe upon the next fellers liberty. I am pretty sure being able to purchase goods and services falls in that category. Hence we all have the right to purchase goods that are being offered for sale. Sellers of course have the same right... to sell their product to any one who wants it. Sellers however have some restrictions placed upon them depending upon the product. Things like selling alcohol, tobacco or explosives to minors.


----------



## homstdr74

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure you know that i have not said any such thing. In the post you just quoted I was quite clear about how a contract is formed only when both buyer and seller have both agreed to the terms and conditions of a sale. I also pointed out that if the buyer changed their mind they are still legally bound to fulfill their end of the bargain. The same holds true for the seller.


Yes I know the words you have written, but the upshot of the consequences are what I'm talking about, which is much the same thing.


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Liberty... the right to do as one pleases as long as it doesn't infringe upon the next fellers liberty. I am pretty sure being able to purchase goods and services falls in that category. Hence we all have the right to purchase goods that are being offered for sale. Sellers of course have the same right... to sell their product to any one who wants it. Sellers however have some restrictions placed upon them depending upon the product. Things like selling alcohol, tobacco or explosives to minors.


This is your best way of putting it so far, but I'm still not sold. For one, there is a difference between selling goods and services. Goods already exist. Services are the future labor of a person. I'm not comfortable with the idea of requiring a person to sell his future labor. He can choose to do so at will, but requiring it leads in a dangerous direction. On the goods side, your position does make sense. I'm not totally convinced, but getting closer.

I really don't see the relevance of the restrictions on selling alcohol and tobacco, though. I have switched angles so many times, it's quite possible I'm missing the one you're getting at.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Liberty... the right to do as one pleases as long as it doesn't infringe upon the next fellers liberty.* I am pretty sure being able to purchase goods and services falls in that category.* Hence we all have the right to purchase goods that are being offered for sale. Sellers of course have the same right... to sell their product to any one who wants it. Sellers however have some restrictions placed upon them depending upon the product. Things like selling alcohol, tobacco or explosives to minors.


The gay couple had no right to that cake.


----------



## farmrbrown

jtbrandt said:


> They can't refuse any customers?





mmoetc said:


> Of course they can but they should be very careful as to the grounds they use to refuse service. Otherwise we would not have this thread.



Yep.
That's the crux of the OP's question.
I'll elaborate.......




mmoetc said:


> While I'll agree that suing someone over a cake seems stupid ( unless it's a really good cake) *this case isn't so much about the cake as it is what grounds a business may use to refuse service which I think is a a good thing to figure out. The reality is that if you advocate someone being allowed to discriminate against those you don't like you also allow those who don't like you the same right. You might not feel the consequences of that discrimination to be so benign.*





jtbrandt said:


> I think you're wrong, but I am glad we finally reached this point where I actually clearly know your position.



I know jt's last quote was a response to YH, but the viewpoints expressed on this thread are the heart of the divide in this country.
The bolded part above is the way some people feel....that there is a right in this country to not be offended.
We all know that isn't true, yet these laws and lawsuits persist.
Someone is disrespected, disappointed, or in some way gets their feelings hurt and they want a legal remedy.

There is a legal precedent for legal action against discrimination. The guidelines used to be clear, but as time goes on, more and more people have inferred and implied things that aren't in the jurisdiction of the courts.

Any place that uses public funds (taxes) can't discriminate.
The precedent was really established with public schools. Denying an education, or even access to books, like a public library, can easily be seen as harmful in a tangible way.
Same with access to a publicly financed transportation like trains and buses.
Those are more than just hurt feelings, they affect your wallet, your ability to protect your legal rights, and many other interactions.

That's real, that's an action that physically harms another and when tax money is involved, the government has legal standing to take action to correct it.

That is a far cry from a couple having a little trouble getting a wedding cake from a private business that refused to take their money.
Not even close.

Now when the Freedom Riders went on their bus rides, it was access to public restrooms and public diners in the bus stations. There was some sort of public/private alliance with Greyhound and Trailways.
The lunch counter sit-ins started at drugstore diners like Walgreens, woolworths, etc.
That was a private business and an economic action/boycott with no legal changes involved, just bad publicity resulting in policy changes by the private business.
If you read the Fair Housing act, you'll find an exemption for private sellers with private financing, IOW discrimination allowed.


It boils down to how much are you willing to tolerate others interfering in your life?
Some of us like being left alone and fending for ourselves, some demand that they be helped, if it is at the cost of another's freedom, so be it.:facepalm:


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> The sign would not be allowed but if it's private there would be no need for a sign stating to the public who is or is not suitable patronage. Private enterprises don't advertise to the public and they don't have open doors.


Now I'm very confused. . .why would the signage not be allowed if those were the rules of the club? How are you expected to have new members if you can't advertise? What if they want to put up a sign that said "Jimmy's Whites only Club, call 123-123-1234 for membership. "


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree that no one is supposed to be able to force anyone to buy any product they don't want..... which is my primary objection to "O"care... however I must disagree with your opinion that a seller who offers their product for sale to the general public has any right to pick and choose who can buy that product based upon race, color, religion, creed, sex or ethnicity etc.... you either have a product for sale or you don't. I am also pretty sure that the courts will agree with my position in a case that push comes to shove and ends up being decided by a judge.


So once you put your private property up for sale you lose control of it? I always thought until money traded hands what was mine was mine. After the exchange of money it becomes yours to do as you wish.

Also I'm quite confused. You say that someone can't force you to buy something, e.g. obamacare, but they can force you to sell something. . . .


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I think this all boils down to one thing.
> 
> *Do you believe that there should be no conditions on a personal freedom.
> 
> or
> 
> Do you believe that there can be conditions on a personal freedom.*
> 
> I believe that there has to sometimes be conditions or people would use their personal freedom to hurt others.


Only anarchist believe there should be no restrictions. Constitutionalists believe such restrictions should only be applied when one person's rights conflict with another's and then those restrictions should be as small as possible.

As pointed out with the classic of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Applying your logic we would completely and totally ban anyone from ever being able to do so. My logic says the only time it should be actionable is if the person yelling it did so in order to induce a panic.

If I stood up before a crowd and told them, "There is no fire but I've always wanted to do this. FIRE!!!!" and there was no panic should I face criminal charges?


----------



## JeffreyD

watcher said:


> Only anarchist believe there should be no restrictions. Constitutionalists believe such restrictions should only be applied when one person's rights conflict with another's and then those restrictions should be as small as possible.
> 
> As pointed out with the classic of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Applying your logic we would completely and totally ban anyone from ever being able to do so. My logic says the only time it should be actionable is if the person yelling it did so in order to induce a panic.
> 
> If I stood up before a crowd and told them, "There is no fire but I've always wanted to do this. FIRE!!!!" and there was no panic should I face criminal charges?


We did just that when I was around 25. Went to see a movie with friends and someone had the idea that if we went to the front of the theater and told the audience and ushers what we were going to do, no one would care. No one did. As a matter of fact, almost everyone their came up and yelp "fire", just to say they did indeed yell fire in a crowded theater. It was pretty cool! Interesting how many really wanted to do it too!!!


----------



## Evons hubby

Vash said:


> The gay couple had no right to that cake.


And you base their loss of the right to purchase said cake upon what?


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And you base their loss of the right to purchase said cake upon what?



"Life, liberty and the _*pursuit*_ of happiness"

Notice that the pursuit is guaranteed, not necessarily the attainment of it.:happy2:
Or as my old man used to say, "Life ain't always fair."


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> "Life, liberty and the _*pursuit*_ of happiness"
> 
> Notice that the pursuit is guaranteed, not necessarily the attainment of it.:happy2:
> Or as my old man used to say, "Life ain't always fair."


I fail to see what the pursuit of happiness has to do with an individuals loss of a constitutional right to engage in a simple, legitimate, legal transaction? Again please explain what basis you are claiming the denial of our buyers rights? Convicted felons lose some of their rights.. I understand that. What did this couple do that cost them their rights?


----------



## JeffreyD

watcher said:


> Only anarchist believe there should be no restrictions. Constitutionalists believe such restrictions should only be applied when one person's rights conflict with another's and then those restrictions should be as small as possible.
> 
> As pointed out with the classic of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Applying your logic we would completely and totally ban anyone from ever being able to do so. My logic says the only time it should be actionable is if the person yelling it did so in order to induce a panic.
> 
> If I stood up before a crowd and told them, "There is no fire but I've always wanted to do this. FIRE!!!!" and there was no panic should I face criminal charges?


We did just that when I was around 25. Went to see a movie with friends and someone had the idea that if we went to the front of the theater and told the audience and ushers what we were going to do, no one would care. No one did. As a matter of fact, almost everyone their came up and yelp "fire", just to say they did indeed yell fire in a crowded theater. It was pretty cool! Interesting how many really wanted to do it too!!!


----------



## JeffreyD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see what the pursuit of happiness has to do with an individuals loss of a constitutional right to engage in a simple, legitimate, legal transaction? Again please explain what basis you are claiming the denial of our buyers rights? Convicted felons lose some of their rights.. I understand that. What did this couple do that cost them their rights?


They told the truth! The cake buyers have no "right" to buy any cake they desire from any baker. The bakers have the "right to deny service to anyone", at any time. They cannot be forced to provide a custom cake, or any product for that matter. If it were true that a food establishment couldn't deny service to anyone, bums would occupy every seat and table, don't you think?


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> They told the truth! The cake buyers have no "right" to buy any cake they desire from any baker. The bakers have the "right to deny service to anyone", at any time. They cannot be forced to provide a custom cake, or any product for that matter. If it were true that a food establishment couldn't deny service to anyone, bums would occupy every seat and table, don't you think?


Everyone agrees that certain behaviors are grounds to be asked to leave any business. Having empty pockets is one.... however any polite and mannerly customer with the price of a meal has the right to be served. This comes from the law of common decency... and has been backed up by judges in courtrooms across the nation. And yes, rude and ignorant entpreneurs have practiced their bigotry for years... much to their own detriment...but that doesn't make it right. Over the past 40 or50 years great strides have been made in this area, but it is obvious that common bigotry is still lurking in the shadows waiting any opportunity to keep our nation living in the dark ages.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see what the pursuit of happiness has to do with an individuals loss of a constitutional right to engage in a simple, legitimate, legal transaction? Again please explain what basis you are claiming the denial of our buyers rights? Convicted felons lose some of their rights.. I understand that. What did this couple do that cost them their rights?



?????
Did I miss something?
Did the couple actually lose the constitutional right to buy a cake? (for those of you who know already, this one doesn't exist, but let me pretend it does)
:shrug:

Or did were they just not able to buy one from THAT vendor?


Do you have the right to own property?
Yes.
Do you have the right to demand that someone sell you theirs?
No.

This is fundamental, and I'm amazed that I'm explaining it but here it is once again.
You have the *right* to pursue a wedding cake, if that's what makes you happy.
You have *no right* that guarantees you'll get one.
:bdh:


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> ?????
> Did I miss something?
> Did the couple actually lose the constitutional right to buy a cake? (for those of you who know already, this one doesn't exist, but let me pretend it does)
> :shrug:
> 
> Or did were they just not able to buy one from THAT vendor?
> 
> 
> Do you have the right to own property?
> Yes.
> Do you have the right to demand that someone sell you theirs?
> No.
> 
> This is fundamental, and I'm amazed that I'm explaining it but here it is once again.
> You have the *right* to pursue a wedding cake, if that's what makes you happy.
> You have *no right* that guarantees you'll get one.
> :bdh:


Do I have a right to buy your property??? Only if you put it on the market for sale. I cannot norwould i attempt to force anyone to sell me anything they don't want to sell.... but if its for sale and I have cash in hand ... you better have a durn good reason to refuse to sell it to me. I just might take it personal... and that has been known to make for an interesting afternoon.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see what the pursuit of happiness has to do with an individuals loss of a constitutional right to engage in a simple, legitimate, legal transaction? Again please explain what basis you are claiming the denial of our buyers rights? Convicted felons lose some of their rights.. I understand that. *What did this couple do that cost them their rights?*


They didn't conform to somebody's religious moral taboos. Like, what else is new? People have freedom of religion and the right to pursue happiness but they still don't have freedom from religion and discriminatory religious zealots who want to deny other people's happiness if they won't conform to their brand of religion. Kinda two-faced, ain't it? :bored:

What goes around comes around all in good time.


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see what the pursuit of happiness has to do with an individuals loss of a constitutional right to engage in a simple, legitimate, legal transaction? Again please explain what basis you are claiming the denial of our buyers rights? Convicted felons lose some of their rights.. I understand that. *What did this couple do that cost them their rights?*


What right did they lose? No money changed hands thus no property changed possession.

The cake (or rather the ingredients and time spent to create it) is the property of the baker until such time as money changes hands.


There is nothing in the Constitution that says this couple had ANY claim to that cake or any other cake for that matter.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> They didn't conform to somebody's religious moral taboos. Like, what else is new? People have freedom of religion and the right to pursue happiness but they still don't have freedom from religion and discriminatory religious zealots who want to deny other people's happiness if they won't conform to their brand of religion. Kinda two-faced, ain't it? :bored:
> 
> What goes around comes around all in good time.


There's the name calling again. 

Also "Freedom _FROM_ Religion" is NOT in the 1st amendment. :walk:


----------



## mmoetc

I was going to walk away from this again and then my brain went down another path. A question for those of you who maintain that the couple had no right to purchase this cake. Why isn't this the legal arguement being made by the bakery. It would seem if no right to make the purchase exists, then there would be no need to invoke another right, in this case religous freedom, to deny the purchase. It would seem a much easier defense to me to assert that no right exists than to prove that one right holds power over another.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> There's the name calling again.
> 
> Also "Freedom _FROM_ Religion" is NOT in the 1st amendment. :walk:


A snivelling crybaby by any other name is still just a snivelling crybaby that cries loudest and needs to grow up. If the shoe fits then they can wear it and cry a river because nobody cares except other snivelling crybabies.

I'll tell you something else that isn't in the 1st amendment for people who are married to their constitution. There is no right to deny happiness to other people because of your freedom of religion.

You show me where it says in your constitution that religious people have the right to persecute other people and use their religion as the excuse for doing so.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> A snivelling crybaby by any other name is still just a snivelling crybaby *that cries loudest* and needs to grow up. If the shoe fits then they can wear it and cry a river because nobody cares except other snivelling crybabies.


Given that you've done most of the name-calling in this thread ...



Paumon said:


> I'll tell you something else that isn't in the 1st amendment for people who are married to their constitution. There is no right to deny happiness to other people because of your freedom of religion.


Nowhere in this thread did anyone say the gay couple couldn't be happy (strawman). The couple simply _has no right_ to another person's property.



Paumon said:


> You show me where it says in your constitution that religious people have the right to *persecute other* people and use their religion as the excuse for doing so.


Denying someone a cake is persecution and religious zealotry? ound: I don't even want to know what you think of groups like the Taliban.

At any rate, the couple in question never lost their right to get a cake. They've probably long since gotten a cake. But the cake in question, again, was never theirs to begin with. They didn't _lose_ their rights to the cake because they never had a right to it.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> A snivelling crybaby by any other name is still just a snivelling crybaby that cries loudest and needs to grow up. If the shoe fits then they can wear it and cry a river because nobody cares except other snivelling crybabies.
> 
> I'll tell you something else that isn't in the 1st amendment for people who are married to their constitution. There is no right to deny happiness to other people because of your freedom of religion.
> 
> You show me where it says in your constitution that religious people have the right to persecute other people and use their religion as the excuse for doing so.


Well this topic has been interesting and eye opening to say the least but it's gotten to the point where I'm waiting for :nana:along with renditions of "Sticks and Stones" and for someone to call Mommy in to break it up. :catfight:


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Do I have a right to buy your property??? Only if you put it on the market for sale. I cannot norwould i attempt to force anyone to sell me anything they don't want to sell.... but if its for sale and I have cash in hand ... you better have a durn good reason to refuse to sell it to me. I just might take it personal... and that has been known to make for an interesting afternoon.


I don't remember which previous post I put this in, but I stated already that this was not true.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title8.php

I can indeed put it up for sale, AND refuse to sell it to you in a discriminatory manner, AND it is legal.
I've tried to explain that this is a right, but as I've noted, some don't believe it and if they do believe it want to take any means possible to change it.
IOW, they want to take away an established right, because their feelings might be hurt.


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> I don't remember which previous post I put this in, but I stated already that this was not true.
> 
> http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title8.php
> 
> I can indeed put it up for sale, AND refuse to sell it to you in a discriminatory manner, AND it is legal.
> I've tried to explain that this is a right, but as I've noted, some don't believe it and if they do believe it want to take any means possible to change it.
> IOW, they want to take away an established right, because their feelings might be hurt.


I am quite familiar with the fair housing act.... having been a licenced real estate agent. I am also well aware of the limited exemption that you may or may not be qualified for that would allow you to be a jerk if you so desired. Like I said before, we have made great strides in the past fifty years.... but it is abundantly clear that ignorance and bigotry is still lurking around a few corners awaiting its chance. Let me ask you.... what possible gain is to be made by excercising the "right" of being a bigot?


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am quite familiar with the fair housing act.... having been a licenced real estate agent. I am also well aware of the limited exemption that you may or may not be qualified for that would allow you to be a jerk if you so desired. Like I said before, we have made great strides in the past fifty years.... but it is abundantly clear that ignorance and bigotry is still lurking around a few corners awaiting its chance. *Let me ask you.... what possible gain is to be made by excercising the "right" of being a bigot?*


Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Only thing accomplished would be to show one's ignorance and hatred.

The other trend I've noticed in this thread is inability to separate between knowing one's rights and knowing right from wrong. Just because I have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that I should do it.
What I mean is, even though I know that bigots have a right to exist and do as they please, and I defend that right, that in no way means that I endorse or agree with what they do.
I can separate between the two instead of thinking that I have a right to force them to do the right thing.
I don't.
Not even the Almighty forces us to do the right thing, He simply tells us what we SHOULD do. The decision we make, is ours.
IOW, personal freedom.


I do think if the bakery owner felt strongly in their beliefs, and they respectfully explained that to a prospective customer that they were refusing, that both parties could agree to disagree and part ways amicably.
One person's viewpoint as a bigot, could be another's view of their religious convictions.
As I said, that is not for me, or anyone else but God to judge.


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Only thing accomplished would be to show one's ignorance and hatred.
> 
> The other trend I've noticed in this thread is inability to separate between knowing one's rights and knowing right from wrong. Just because I have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that I should do it.
> What I mean is, even though I know that bigots have a right to exist and do as they please, and I defend that right, that in no way means that I endorse or agree with what they do.
> I can separate between the two instead of thinking that I have a right to force them to do the right thing.
> I don't.
> Not even the Almighty forces us to do the right thing, He simply tells us what we SHOULD do. The decision we make, is ours.
> IOW, personal freedom.


I feel better now. Now as to the right to discriminate in the housing market... you are aware that for the vast majority of our fellow citizens (myself included) it is indeed illegal are you not?


----------



## Guest

Good Lord , isn't there a gay baker intelligent enough to bake a cake ?


----------



## farmrbrown

Yes.
I read the........er.......law.
It would have to be a private sale, the number of which per year is limited (5 I think), absolutely no hint of gov't involvement (i.e. FHA pr any other banking institution regulated by gov't) and a few other restrictions.


My point was simple, even if hard to accept.
You can't legislate people into doing the right thing. If we could, all the jail cells in this country would be empty.
It hasn't worked since the beginning of time and it won't work tomorrow.
You can pass all the gay bake sale laws you want, and it won't change the way people think or feel.
And it might just make things worse, by turning what could be a civil, public discussion into a dig-in-your-heels fight.

Speaking as a good ole southern boy, raised to do the right thing, I know of what I speak.


----------



## Evons hubby

WV Hillbilly said:


> Good Lord , isn't there a gay baker intelligent enough to bake a cake ?


There probably are.... but thanks to ignorance and bigotry a good many gays remain in the closet.I am thinking a better question would be "good Lord, aren't there any sensible bakers intelligent enough to bake a cake?"


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> Yes.
> I read the........er.......law.
> It would have to be a private sale, the number of which per year is limited (5 I think), absolutely no hint of gov't involvement (i.e. FHA pr any other banking institution regulated by gov't) and a few other restrictions.
> 
> 
> My point was simple, even if hard to accept.
> You can't legislate people into doing the right thing. If we could, all the jail cells in this country would be empty.
> It hasn't worked since the beginning of time and it won't work tomorrow.
> You can pass all the gay bake sale laws you want, and it won't change the way people think or feel.
> And it might just make things worse, by turning what could be a civil, public discussion into a dig-in-your-heels fight.
> 
> Speaking as a good ole southern boy, raised to do the right thing, I know of what I speak.


Legislating morality never works...all it does is fill up jail cells. Education is a much better route.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Legislating morality never works...all it does is fill up jail cells. Education is a much better route.


Yes, I agree.
I would add a note of caution though, on that statement about education.
Most of us rural, relatively uneducated or self-educated, people know that is sometimes code language for, "We have to give you opposition info until you're "educated" enough to change your mind."
Rarely have I found that any emphasis on "education", goes towards explaining to the offended group (in this case homosexuals) that their opponents may have deeply religious, personal, long standing beliefs that they have no intention of abandoning. Instead, it would be more helpful to "educate" the homosexuals how offensive it would be for those people to have their beliefs turn them into criminals.
We can learn to accept each other with tolerance, but to force someone to go further than that, isn't advisable.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And you base their loss of the right to purchase said cake upon what?


The fact that they had no "right" to buy a cake.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I fail to see what the pursuit of happiness has to do with an individuals loss of a constitutional right to engage in a simple, legitimate, legal transaction? Again please explain what basis you are claiming the denial of our buyers rights? Convicted felons lose some of their rights.. I understand that. What did this couple do that cost them their rights?


Let's see. The seller has a right to follow their religion. The sell has the right to control their personal property (i.e. the cake). The seller has the right to attempt to engage in commerce but no right to force the buyer to complete the transaction. 

The buyer has the right to follow their religion. The buyer has the right to control their personal property (i.e. their money). The buyer has the right to offer to engage in commerce but no right to force the seller to complete the transaction.

If at any time BEFORE the transaction is completed each side has the right to refuse to engage in commerce with the other for any reason because the property is still theirs.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Everyone agrees that certain behaviors are grounds to be asked to leave any business. Having empty pockets is one.... however any polite and mannerly customer with the price of a meal has the right to be served. This comes from the law of common decency... and has been backed up by judges in courtrooms across the nation.


Judges and juries have made a lot of wrong calls in the past. There have been many white men who had judges and juries rule them not guilty for crimes against blacks. We could also get into how Catholics, Jews, Irish, Chinese, Indians and others have been treated to the by the courts. Why did this happen? Because society at the time thought it was the right thing to do. Did that make it proper or constitutional?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> And yes, rude and ignorant entpreneurs have practiced their bigotry for years... much to their own detriment...but that doesn't make it right. Over the past 40 or50 years great strides have been made in this area, but it is obvious that common bigotry is still lurking in the shadows waiting any opportunity to keep our nation living in the dark ages.


Look a it this way:

You don't like bigots so you want to force them to act the way they should. In other words, the way YOU think they should. 

Me, I don't like bigots so I stay away from them but as long as they are only being bigots in their personal lives and with their personal property and their bigotry doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights I live and let live.

Now put something you believe in place of bigotry and think about how you'd think if someone told you they were making it illegal.

BTW, ever read how society used its idea of "common decency" to 'civilize' the 'savage redman'? How they used laws to forbid them to practice their 'unGodly religion' or to even speak their 'uncivilized' language?


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Do I have a right to buy your property??? Only if you put it on the market for sale. I cannot norwould i attempt to force anyone to sell me anything they don't want to sell.... but if its for sale and I have cash in hand ... you better have a durn good reason to refuse to sell it to me. I just might take it personal... and that has been known to make for an interesting afternoon.


How about because its MY property and I can do with it what I wish?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I was going to walk away from this again and then my brain went down another path. A question for those of you who maintain that the couple had no right to purchase this cake. Why isn't this the legal arguement being made by the bakery. It would seem if no right to make the purchase exists, then there would be no need to invoke another right, in this case religous freedom, to deny the purchase. It would seem a much easier defense to me to assert that no right exists than to prove that one right holds power over another.


Because it would have no bearing on the case. The case was that the baker refused to sell due to their religious beliefs and were sued on the basis that they have violated the civil rights (the right to be gay in this case) of the couple. IOW, the case was not about the couple not getting the cake but about the treatment. In theory the couple could have sued if the baker had sold them the cake but had kept us a monolog about how the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and the couple was going to Hell, etc, etc, while selling it.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am quite familiar with the fair housing act.... having been a licenced real estate agent. I am also well aware of the limited exemption that you may or may not be qualified for that would allow you to be a jerk if you so desired. Like I said before, we have made great strides in the past fifty years.... but it is abundantly clear that ignorance and bigotry is still lurking around a few corners awaiting its chance. Let me ask you.... what possible gain is to be made by excercising the "right" of being a bigot?


Bigotry is not "lurking". Like it or not its part of human nature. Look at your own life. When you are at a large gatherings who do you spend most of your time with? People who are like you. That may be because of their job or the sport they like or their hobby or even GASP their color! You 'discriminate' against people who are not like you. Even if the people in charge 'forced' you to be around people you have nothing in common with did that change your behavior at the next gathering? And no number of laws, rules or restrictions you put on people is (are??) going to change how people think in society.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Because it would have no bearing on the case. The case was that the baker refused to sell due to their religious beliefs and were sued on the basis that they have violated the civil rights (the right to be gay in this case) of the couple. IOW, the case was not about the couple not getting the cake but about the treatment. In theory the couple could have sued if the baker had sold them the cake but had kept us a monolog about how the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and the couple was going to Hell, etc, etc, while selling it.


But the question is why the baker had to assert religous freedom in the first place. If there is absolutely no right to buy the cake the reason for not selling it becomes moot. The only reason to invoke the free practice of religion in a legal argument is to counter the fact that the couple did have some right to the cake but that your right to practice your religion is somehow more compelling.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I feel better now. Now as to the right to discriminate in the housing market... you are aware that for the vast majority of our fellow citizens (myself included) it is indeed illegal are you not?


Brings up the same thing. Who gave you (a general you) the right to tell me what I can and can not do with my personal property except in very, very, very limited circumstances?

Also what if society changes again and passes laws forbidding you (specific you this time) from selling your house to a 6 foot tall left handed Chinese heterosexual? Would the fact that society thinks its the proper thing do do make it right?


----------



## watcher

WV Hillbilly said:


> Good XXXX , isn't there a XXX baker intelligent enough to bake a cake ?


I had to exit your msg it might have offended someone.

:sing:


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Legislating morality never works...all it does is fill up jail cells. Education is a much better route.


Are you beginning to see the light?


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> But the question is why the baker had to assert religous freedom in the first place. If there is absolutely no right to buy the cake the reason for not selling it becomes moot. The only reason to invoke the free practice of religion in a legal argument is to counter the fact that the couple did have some right to the cake but that your right to practice your religion is somehow more compelling.


Simply put, the baker had the Constitution on his side, since it states (quite clearly, in fact) that: *â**Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or* prohibiting the free exercise thereof;â*

The clause that clearly states there can be no law made to prohibit the free exercise of his religion, and that is the crux of the situation. There is not, nor should there ever be, any comparable law that enforces homosexuality or any other mere âlifestyleâ as morally or legally equivalent to a personâs religion.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> But the question is why the baker had to assert religous freedom in the first place. If there is absolutely no right to buy the cake the reason for not selling it becomes moot. The only reason to invoke the free practice of religion in a legal argument is to counter the fact that the couple did have some right to the cake but that your right to practice your religion is somehow more compelling.


I'm sure what happened was the baker told the couple they would not bake a cake for them, the couple asked why not and the baker told them it was because of their religious beliefs. At that point the commerce became moot in the political correct judicial system of today.

I don't know how old you are or how much you know about the southern US before desegregation so I'm not sure you'll understand the following.

Think of a case in the deep South in say 1920. A black man is on trial for hitting a white man. There's a white judge, a all white male jury and laws which are HEAVILY weighted in white's favor. The black guy is on the stand and is asked "Did you hit him?" Black guy replies "After he hit me. . ." after which the lawyer interrupts and demands a yes or no answer and the judge tells the black guy to only answer the questions put to him. Question is asked again and the guy says "Yes." Prosecutor says "No more questions."

The guys lawyer gets up and ask "Why did you hit him?" The prosecutor objects and the judge upholds and the defense is not allowed to bring up the fact that the white guy hit the black guy first.

Do you thing the guy would have been convicted? I think so and it'd be all legal and proper. After all he got a fair trial in an open court before a jury didn't he?

In today's political climate do you really think the religious bakers had much more of a chance of winning their case than our fictitious black man?


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> Simply put, the baker had the Constitution on his side, since it states (quite clearly, in fact) that: *â**Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or* prohibiting the free exercise thereof;â*
> 
> The clause that clearly states there can be no law made to prohibit the free exercise of his religion, and that is the crux of the situation. There is not, nor should there ever be, any comparable law that enforces homosexuality or any other mere âlifestyleâ as morally or legally equivalent to a personâs religion. [/QUOTE
> 
> And I'll ask the question once again. If you have an absolute right to not have to sell your cake why do you need to invoke freedom of religion as your rationale? They are two separate arguements. If you have one you have no need to invoke the other. I have pointed out the Supreme Court's position in a couple of rulings I thought pertinent. Still waiting on your citations where any court has held that discrimination in a commercial setting open to the public is legal.


----------



## watcher

homstdr74 said:


> Simply put, the baker had the Constitution on his side, since it states (quite clearly, in fact) that: *â**Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or* prohibiting the free exercise thereof;â*
> 
> The clause that clearly states there can be no law made to prohibit the free exercise of his religion, and that is the crux of the situation. There is not, nor should there ever be, any comparable law that enforces homosexuality or any other mere âlifestyleâ as morally or legally equivalent to a personâs religion.


Actually I disagree with you here. The 1st only applies to congress which is clearly defined in the USC. That means that if a state wished to pass such laws they would have the full right to do so. We could get into if other amendments would override that ability or not but lets not.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I'm sure what happened was the baker told the couple they would not bake a cake for them, the couple asked why not and the baker told them it was because of their religious beliefs. At that point the commerce became moot in the political correct judicial system of today.
> 
> I don't know how old you are or how much you know about the southern US before desegregation so I'm not sure you'll understand the following.
> 
> Think of a case in the deep South in say 1920. A black man is on trial for hitting a white man. There's a white judge, a all white male jury and laws which are HEAVILY weighted in white's favor. The black guy is on the stand and is asked "Did you hit him?" Black guy replies "After he hit me. . ." after which the lawyer interrupts and demands a yes or no answer and the judge tells the black guy to only answer the questions put to him. Question is asked again and the guy says "Yes." Prosecutor says "No more questions."
> 
> The guys lawyer gets up and ask "Why did you hit him?" The prosecutor objects and the judge upholds and the defense is not allowed to bring up the fact that the white guy hit the black guy first.
> 
> Do you thing the guy would have been convicted? I think so and it'd be all legal and proper. After all he got a fair trial in an open court before a jury didn't he?
> 
> In today's political climate do you really think the religious bakers had much more of a chance of winning their case than our fictitious black man?


Still doesn't answer my question. If you're indeed worried that the system is biased against the religous arguement then why bring it up unnecessarily in court? Simply prove that you have the right to sell to only who you wish with no restrictions which is what one of your arguements claims. If you can prove that religion and your fear of political correctness gone awry never come into play.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> homstdr74 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, the baker had the Constitution on his side, since it states (quite clearly, in fact) that: *â**Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or* prohibiting the free exercise thereof;â*
> 
> The clause that clearly states there can be no law made to prohibit the free exercise of his religion, and that is the crux of the situation. There is not, nor should there ever be, any comparable law that enforces homosexuality or any other mere âlifestyleâ as morally or legally equivalent to a personâs religion. [/QUOTE
> 
> And I'll ask the question once again. If you have an absolute right to not have to sell your cake why do you need to invoke freedom of religion as your rationale? They are two separate arguements. If you have one you have no need to invoke the other. I have pointed out the Supreme Court's position in a couple of rulings I thought pertinent. Still waiting on your citations where any court has held that discrimination in a commercial setting open to the public is legal.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just your mindset that there needs to be some sort of bridge between what the baker did and what you think he should do. They are not two separate arguments to the baker, as it entails his right to exercise his religious beliefs as he chooses. The Constitution is quite clear about that and all Americans agree with the 1st. Amendment*. *
Click to expand...


----------



## homstdr74

watcher said:


> Actually I disagree with you here. The 1st only applies to congress which is clearly defined in the USC. That means that if a state wished to pass such laws they would have the full right to do so. We could get into if other amendments would override that ability or not but lets not.


 The State's laws can be overridden by the U.S. Constitution. The SCOTUS does it all the time.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Actually I disagree with you here. The 1st only applies to congress which is clearly defined in the USC. That means that if a state wished to pass such laws they would have the full right to do so. We could get into if other amendments would override that ability or not but lets not.


I am pretty sure I read that this issue has been ruled on by the supremes and states are not allowed to pass any laws of this nature either. I have a docs appointment so am short on time to look it up now but will try to find it when I get home later.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Still doesn't answer my question. If you're indeed worried that the system is biased against the religous arguement then why bring it up unnecessarily in court? Simply prove that you have the right to sell to only who you wish with no restrictions which is what one of your arguements claims. If you can prove that religion and your fear of political correctness gone awry never come into play.


You can't bring something up in court which the court rules has no bearing on the case. (I don't make the rules, or even understand them sometimes.) Not having the constitutional right to buy a cake has no bearing in a case involving someone's gay civil rights being violated. See in the court's eyes it isn't the fact they didn't sell them the cake it was because it was because they exerted their religious beliefs which caused such lasting damage to the gay couple that the court had to bring the full force of the government into the issue (you'd be hard pressed to say not getting a cake would cause someone THAT much damage). Just in our fictional case the court didn't care WHY the black guy hit someone, only that he DID hit them.

If they had been sued for failure to uphold an unwritten contract by not selling them the cake, not social/political correctness, had been the issue then the lack of a right to buy a cake would be relevant to the case.


----------



## watcher

homstdr74 said:


> The State's laws can be overridden by the U.S. Constitution. The SCOTUS does it all the time.


They have ruled that a local school rule is equal to a congressionally passed law and have overridden them as well. I don't see where they pull that from and can't suggest where I think it was in a family forum but they pulled it from somewhere.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure I read that this issue has been ruled on by the supremes and states are not allowed to pass any laws of this nature either. I have a docs appointment so am short on time to look it up now but will try to find it when I get home later.


They have ruled a lot of things but if you read the USC you will see only someone with a political addenda could see it otherwise.

I'll show you what I mean.

Congress is defined in Article 1; Section 1.

"_. . .Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives._"

And the 1st amendment says;

"_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,_ . . ."

Simple substitution gives us; 

The Senate and House of Representatives shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .

When you go to the 10th amendment you find out if a power is not specifically given to the feds or forbidden by the USC to the states the states have that power.

Now after that there is the 14th which could be used to say that power was removed from the states but of course looked at 'correctly' the 14th says the states no longer have any rights not given to them by the federal government.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> You can't bring something up in court which the court rules has no bearing on the case. (I don't make the rules, or even understand them sometimes.) Not having the constitutional right to buy a cake has no bearing in a case involving someone's gay civil rights being violated. See in the court's eyes it isn't the fact they didn't sell them the cake it was because it was because they exerted their religious beliefs which caused such lasting damage to the gay couple that the court had to bring the full force of the government into the issue (you'd be hard pressed to say not getting a cake would cause someone THAT much damage). Just in our fictional case the court didn't care WHY the black guy hit someone, only that he DID hit them.
> 
> If they had been sued for failure to uphold an unwritten contract by not selling them the cake, not social/political correctness, had been the issue then the lack of a right to buy a cake would be relevant to the case.


If there is an absolute right that no one has to sell any one else anything under any circumstance which is what you and others have stated then there can be no violation of anyone's civil rights if they are not allowed to buy the cake. The reason matters not. There can be no violation of a right or priviledge that doesn't exist in the first place.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> And I'll ask the question once again. If you have an absolute right to not have to sell your cake why do you need to invoke freedom of religion as your rationale? They are two separate arguements. If you have one you have no need to invoke the other.


The answer is, they did not need to, they chose to.
Property is a 4th amendment issue, religion the 1st. Maybe they wanted to go into court with both barrels loaded?
If I am going to court it is my personal choice (freedom) to pick my defense.





mmoetc said:


> I have pointed out the Supreme Court's position in a couple of rulings I thought pertinent. Still waiting on your citations where any court has held that discrimination in a commercial setting open to the public is legal.


I have given at least one example (Fair Housing Act) and there are are many more.
Google is your friend.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> The answer is, they did not need to, they chose to.
> Property is a 4th amendment issue, religion the 1st. Maybe they wanted to go into court with both barrels loaded?
> If I am going to court it is my personal choice (freedom) to pick my defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have given at least one example (Fair Housing Act) and there are are many more.
> Google is your friend.


You've given one narrow piece of legislation dealing with a narrow part of the economy. I've found two SC cases that back my opinion on the broader economy and Google has failed my search for cases of legalized discrimination regarding businesses open to the public. I was hoping your greater research skills could point me in the right direction.


----------



## unregistered353870

I've agreed with you on a lot in this thread, but you lost me here. How does this....



homstdr74 said:


> Simply put, the baker had the Constitution on his side, since it states (quite clearly, in fact) that: *&#8220;**Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or* prohibiting the free exercise thereof;&#8221;*


...equal this?



> The clause that clearly states* there can be no law made to prohibit the free exercise of his religion*, and that is the crux of the situation. There is not, nor should there ever be, any comparable law that enforces homosexuality or any other mere &#8220;lifestyle&#8221; as morally or legally equivalent to a person&#8217;s religion.


All I see in the clause is that "*Congress* shall make no law...." Nothing about "there can be no law made...."

ETA: I see my point has already been made by others.


----------



## homstdr74

jtbrandt said:


> I've agreed with you on a lot in this thread, but you lost me here. How does this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *homstdr74*
> _Simply put, the baker had the Constitution on his side, since it states (quite clearly, in fact) that: *â**Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or* prohibiting the free exercise thereof;â*_
> 
> 
> 
> ...equal this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The clause that clearly states* there can be no law made to prohibit the free exercise of his religion*, and that is the crux of the situation. There is not, nor should there ever be, any comparable law that enforces homosexuality or any other mere âlifestyleâ as morally or legally equivalent to a personâs religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All I see in the clause is that "*Congress* shall make no law...." Nothing about "there can be no law made...."
> 
> ETA: I see my point has already been made by others.
Click to expand...

If the general tenor is that our religious rights are sacrosanct and shall not be tampered with, when ANY law is made against those rights they can be appealed through the SCOTUS. I doubt very seriously that those on the bench would side with some Stalinist thug who had passed a law to make of a church nothing more than his private stable.


----------



## painterswife

Does everyone know that the bakers were sued under State laws? Does that mean that this whole USC freedoms are mute.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> If there is an absolute right that no one has to sell any one else anything under any circumstance which is what you and others have stated then there can be no violation of anyone's civil rights if they are not allowed to buy the cake. The reason matters not. There can be no violation of a right or priviledge that doesn't exist in the first place.


As I pointed out even if the baker had sold them the cake they could still be sued for violating the gay civil rights of the couple. Therefore the right to sell or not sell has no bearing in the case and would not be allowed to be entered into it. Remember we are talking about a political event here, just like the fictional assault case I brought up.


----------



## unregistered353870

homstdr74 said:


> If the general tenor is that our religious rights are sacrosanct and shall not be tampered with, when ANY law is made against those rights they can be appealed through the SCOTUS. I doubt very seriously that those on the bench would side with some Stalinist thug who had passed a law to make of a church nothing more than his private stable.


I don't follow....


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Does everyone know that the bakers were sued under State laws? Does that mean that this whole USC freedoms are mute.


Not entirely, since it could end up there eventually. But my arguments have nothing to do with courts anyway. I'm all about idealism...the way things should be rather than the way they are.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Brings up the same thing. Who gave you (a general you) the right to tell me what I can and can not do with my personal property except in very, very, very limited circumstances?
> 
> Also what if society changes again and passes laws forbidding you (specific you this time) from selling your house to a 6 foot tall left handed Chinese heterosexual? Would the fact that society thinks its the proper thing do do make it right?


As to who granted the government its powers.... that would have been "we the people"

As to me selling my home to a lefthanded chinaman... its not for sale... to anyone.


----------



## homstdr74

jtbrandt said:


> I don't follow....


State law does not supersede the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Evons hubby

:grit:


watcher said:


> They have ruled a lot of things but if you read the USC you will see only someone with a political addenda could see it otherwise.
> 
> I'll show you what I mean.
> 
> Congress is defined in Article 1; Section 1.
> 
> "_. . .Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives._"
> 
> And the 1st amendment says;
> 
> "_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,_ . . ."
> 
> Simple substitution gives us;
> 
> The Senate and House of Representatives shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .
> 
> When you go to the 10th amendment you find out if a power is not specifically given to the feds or forbidden by the USC to the states the states have that power.
> 
> Now after that there is the 14th which could be used to say that power was removed from the states but of course looked at 'correctly' the 14th says the states no longer have any rights not given to them by the federal government.


I find your interpretation of the fourteenth interesting to say the least. I can find nothing remotely close to that in it. :shrug:


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :grit:
> I find your interpretation of the fourteenth interesting to say the least. I can find nothing remotely close to that in it. :shrug:


Try harder.


With regard to the topic of the thread:


> Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect, with exception of the Thirteenth Amendmentâs ban on slavery, not against actions by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials.[155] Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948): "[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. *That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." The court added in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883): "It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment.*


With regard to state powers:


> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State* shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;* nor shall any State* deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


State only, not the Congress or Federal Government.


----------



## unregistered353870

homstdr74 said:


> State law does not supersede the U.S. Constitution.


That's true, but I still don't get how it applies here. The first amendment does not restrict state governments. It very easily could have if the founders wanted it to...all they had to do was phrase it like the second amendment, but they apparently chose to limit it to Congress.


----------



## Vash

jtbrandt said:


> That's true, but I still don't get how it applies here. *The first amendment does not restrict state governments.* It very easily could have if the founders wanted it to...all they had to do was phrase it like the second amendment, but they apparently chose to limit it to Congress.


Nope, but the 10th does.


----------



## unregistered353870

Vash said:


> Nope, but the 10th does.


How do you figure?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> You've given one narrow piece of legislation dealing with a narrow part of the economy. I've found two SC cases that back my opinion on the broader economy and Google has failed my search for cases of legalized discrimination regarding businesses open to the public. I was hoping your greater research skills could point me in the right direction.




I'll try. I'm sure there are court cases within these links, but here's a few....
Granted these relate to employer/employee discrimination, not customer, but I think the standard would be the same.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/11/19/8-ways-employers-can-discriminate-against-workers-legally/


And two SCOTUS cases.......

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/court-rules-for-employers-in-two-employment-discrimination-cases/


And closely related to the bakery case, was the wedding photographer in New Mexico. The court ruling on that case is interesting to say the least.
The court ruled that being open to the public instead of a private club, meant they had to serve the gay couple, BUT it also gave them the right to publicly advertise they were against gay marriages......???
You can publicly voice your discrimination..........just not act on it. :hrm::shrug:

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/why-...ws-against-wedding-photographers-doesnt-work/


----------



## homstdr74

The problem is not anything that is presently perceived; the real problem is that people are arguing with the use of legalities and politics but the situation has nothing to do with either. âReligionâ, or, rather, peopleâs religious convictions, has nothing to do with politics. That is why the Founders put the âreligion clauseâ into the First Amendment. Unfortunately for us, the Founders, while many were geniuses, could not perceive that there would ever be a movement of idiotic proportions such as the âmoral equivalencyâ movement founded in the Sixties.

Homosexuals knew that religious convictions could be undermined by making them out to be mere political âlegalitiesâ which they are quite definitely not. They did so to overturn any bias against their âlifestyleâ. The Pro-Abortion people caught on and began their own campaign to do much the same, often working hand-in-hand with the homosexuals to achieve the undermining of and eventual gradual destruction of religion, especially among young people, who are their prime targets.

Anyone arguing for âhomosexualityâ and thus against religious convictions, and doing so using legalities, is way off base or, to put it more into sport terms, is discussing a football game using tennis terminology.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I'll try. I'm sure there are court cases within these links, but here's a few....
> Granted these relate to employer/employee discrimination, not customer, but I think the standard would be the same.
> 
> http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/11/19/8-ways-employers-can-discriminate-against-workers-legally/
> 
> 
> And two SCOTUS cases.......
> 
> http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/court-rules-for-employers-in-two-employment-discrimination-cases/
> 
> 
> And closely related to the bakery case, was the wedding photographer in New Mexico. The court ruling on that case is interesting to say the least.
> The court ruled that being open to the public instead of a private club, meant they had to serve the gay couple, BUT it also gave them the right to publicly advertise they were against gay marriages......???
> You can publicly voice your discrimination..........just not act on it. :hrm::shrug:
> 
> http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/why-...ws-against-wedding-photographers-doesnt-work/


Thanks for the research and it shows what I have found. Workplace law establishing rules between employers and employees have no bearing on this discussion. The relevant ruling is the New Mexico one which supports what I have been saying. If you operate a business which offers public accomodations, ie is open to the public, you must offer those accomodations to all of the public. This ruling is supported by the SC decision in the private club case in NY.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> As I pointed out even if the baker had sold them the cake they could still be sued for violating the gay civil rights of the couple. Therefore the right to sell or not sell has no bearing in the case and would not be allowed to be entered into it. Remember we are talking about a political event here, just like the fictional assault case I brought up.


Had the cake been sold there would have been no act of discrimination and therefor no court case. The precipitating action was the refusal not to sell the cake, not the bakery expressing their opposition to gay marriage. They are free to voice that opinion to any and all. They are not free to deny a service offered to others based on that opinion. The denial of service is the core of the legal argument.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As to who granted the government its powers.... that would have been "we the people"


So why does that government get its nickers in a knot when those same people get together and grant their state or local government powers the federal government doesn't like? Shouldn't "we the people" have the power to grant the power we wish to the government?

If the people wish to tell stores they are forbidden to sell American Cheese to anyone who could not prove they were American citizens don't they have the power to do that? 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> As to me selling my home to a lefthanded chinaman... its not for sale... to anyone.


For now. In the future you may wish to sell or the government may come in and force you to sell it. After all it might want to give your land to a developer to build something which would bring in more tax to the government (don't worry about all that profit for the developer) than what you are paying. Seeing as how the USSC has ruled that to be constitutional I'm sure you'd say "Thank you." and smile as the bulldozers flatten what you have worked for.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :grit:
> I find your interpretation of the fourteenth interesting to say the least. I can find nothing remotely close to that in it. :shrug:


Paragraph 5.

_The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._

That gives the federal government, via congress, the ability to write laws which they can force the States to do what it says. All it has to do is say the law is written to protect the privileges, immunities, life, liberty, or property of citizens. 

Say the congress wants the states to set their speed limit to 15 mph. It passes a federal law demanding it based on the fact that doing so would protect the lives of citizens because almost all crashes at 15 mph would be survivable as opposed to the number of citizens being killed in crashes at 50+ mph.

Can you logically argue that such a law would not protect the lives of many citizens who would otherwise die? Well there you go its a constitutional law.

Think of any other thing the federal government would want to have control over and I'm sure a pol could easily find a way that giving that control to the feds would protect the privileges, immunities, life, liberty, or property of citizens thereby making it constitutional under the 14th.

Do you find any fault in the logic?


----------



## watcher

Vash said:


> Nope, but the 10th does.


Actually the 10th gives states power not limit it.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So why does that government get its nickers in a knot when those same people get together and grant their state or local government powers the federal government doesn't like? Shouldn't "we the people" have the power to grant the power we wish to the government?
> 
> If the people wish to tell stores they are forbidden to sell American Cheese to anyone who could not prove they were American citizens don't they have the power to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For now. In the future you may wish to sell or the government may come in and force you to sell it. After all it might want to give your land to a developer to build something which would bring in more tax to the government (don't worry about all that profit for the developer) than what you are paying. Seeing as how the USSC has ruled that to be constitutional I'm sure you'd say "Thank you." and smile as the bulldozers flatten what you have worked for.


I'm sure he'd fight and argue to change the decision or, at least, get the best price he could. So what? There are aspects of the law that each and every one of us find abhorrent. Not likely the same things for all of us. The laws and even the constitution are only a snapshot of the conditions at any given point. For those of you certain about the meaning and infallibility of the original drafters
of the constitution please explain to me how they could have been so wrong as to things like the rights of women and slavery. If they missed those seemingly simple things by so much what else did they mess up?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Had the cake been sold there would have been no act of discrimination and therefor no court case.


That depends on the action of the seller before and after the sell. The way I understand the laws if while selling you a cake I subject you to a constant flow of remarks about your race, gender, et al you can still sue me for discrimination.




mmoetc said:


> The precipitating action was the refusal not to sell the cake, not the bakery expressing their opposition to gay marriage. They are free to voice that opinion to any and all. They are not free to deny a service offered to others based on that opinion. The denial of service is the core of the legal argument.


No the core of the argument is the discrimination. It was the fact that the words used were 'anti-gay' that triggered the suit. Again if the owners had used crude remarks about and/or toward the buyers during the transaction they could have faced a lawsuit. 

I hate to keep using race but for some reason it seem to resonate better for some people so I will. Say a black guy walks in to a shop. The owner behind the counter says "Great another <insert major black slur here>! Well _boy _what do you want, some watermelon or fried chicken or maybe some Kools? Or are you just here to steal something?" He just keeps on with the race based insults but he never refuses to sell the guy what he wants. Do you think he most likely wouldn't face a lawsuit if that black guy happened to be a civil rights lawyer?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> That depends on the action of the seller before and after the sell. The way I understand the laws if while selling you a cake I subject you to a constant flow of remarks about your race, gender, et al you can still sue me for discrimination.
> 
> No the core of the argument is the discrimination. It was the fact that the words used were 'anti-gay' that triggered the suit. Again if the owners had used crude remarks about and/or toward the buyers during the transaction they could have faced a lawsuit.
> 
> I hate to keep using race but for some reason it seem to resonate better for some people so I will. Say a black guy walks in to a shop. The owner behind the counter says "Great another <insert major black slur here>! Well _boy _what do you want, some watermelon or fried chicken or maybe some Kools? Or are you just here to steal something?" He just keeps on with the race based insults but he never refuses to sell the guy what he wants. Do you think he most likely wouldn't face a lawsuit if that black guy happened to be a civil rights lawyer?


They may or may not but those aren't the facts in this case. The facts are that the bakery refused to sell the cake. The facts are that they stated religous objections to the gay wedding. (As an aside, the cake was being bought for a local reception to celebrate a wedding that had taken place in Mass. some time earlier). The facts are that the bakery was sued for not selling the cake. Religous freedom was their defense, not the accusation against them. It would be nice if occasionally you addressed the facts of the case, not what you believe happened or another hypothetical situation designed to bolster your argument.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for the research and it shows what I have found. Workplace law establishing rules between employers and employees have no bearing on this discussion. The relevant ruling is the New Mexico one which supports what I have been saying. If you operate a business which offers public accomodations, ie is open to the public, you must offer those accomodations to all of the public. This ruling is supported by the SC decision in the private club case in NY.


I think the employer/employee rulings are extremely relevant, but I'll set that aside.

I hesitated to post that because I knew it would encourage exactly the statement you made.
There is no language in the U.S. Constitution that supports those rulings.
They are by definition unconstitutional and therefore we are obligated to ignore and defy them, NOT accept them as law.
Every piece of language in the USC with regard to this pertains to the state or federal gov't, not a private business. Any ruling that affects private businesses and individuals needs to be defied by the people before it's too late. This is how dictatorships start and we are seeing it happen in this country before our very eyes.
This is the point where I refuse to recognize the gov't authority over me and renounce that authority........by force if they so wish it to be.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> That depends on the action of the seller before and after the sell. The way I understand the laws if while selling you a cake I subject you to a constant flow of remarks about your race, gender, et al you can still sue me for discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the core of the argument is the discrimination. It was the fact that the words used were 'anti-gay' that triggered the suit. Again if the owners had used crude remarks about and/or toward the buyers during the transaction they could have faced a lawsuit.
> 
> I hate to keep using race but for some reason it seem to resonate better for some people so I will. Say a black guy walks in to a shop. The owner behind the counter says "Great another <insert major black slur here>! Well _boy _what do you want, some watermelon or fried chicken or maybe some Kools? Or are you just here to steal something?" He just keeps on with the race based insults but he never refuses to sell the guy what he wants. Do you think he most likely wouldn't face a lawsuit if that black guy happened to be a civil rights lawyer?


If you'll read the last link in my post earlier today, you'll see that isn't true, at least according to New Mexico.
That's why I posted the incredulous smilies.
The court actually said in its ruling that you could advertise your store being anti-gay, you could make public statements that you were anti-gay to your customers.......but in the end the court said you STILL had to serve them if they were stupid enough and persistent enough to insist on it.
:facepalm::doh:


----------



## farmrbrown

I've defied and gotten illegal laws rescinded. The only thing it requires is courage.
A rare commodity nowadays, i'll admit, but very effective.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> I'm sure he'd fight and argue to change the decision or, at least, get the best price he could. So what? There are aspects of the law that each and every one of us find abhorrent. Not likely the same things for all of us. The laws and even the constitution are only a snapshot of the conditions at any given point. For those of you certain about the meaning and infallibility of the original drafters
> of the constitution please explain to me how they could have been so wrong as to things like the rights of women and slavery. If they missed those seemingly simple things by so much what else did they mess up?


Who said they were wrong about women? :run:


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> They may or may not but those aren't the facts in this case. The facts are that the bakery refused to sell the cake. The facts are that they stated religous objections to the gay wedding. (As an aside, the cake was being bought for a local reception to celebrate a wedding that had taken place in Mass. some time earlier). The facts are that the bakery was sued for not selling the cake.


Again they were NOT sued for not selling the cake, they were sued for discrimination. If they had been sued for not selling a cake then anyone they refused to sell to could sue them. Then people would be lining up to not be sold a cake.




mmoetc said:


> Religous freedom was their defense, not the accusation against them. It would be nice if occasionally you addressed the facts of the case, not what you believe happened or another hypothetical situation designed to bolster your argument.


Correct, they used the fact that their religion thinks homosexuality is a sin and being forced to sell the cake would show or offer support for it. But their "crime" was not, not selling it was for acting on their "discriminatory" religious beliefs. IOW, the act, or non-act in this case, was only the example of their discrimination.

Its things like this that make 'thought crimes' so strange. The way I understand most of these laws, you could kill someone and be found not guilty but if you had been heard yelling racial slurs during you alleged crime you could still be found guilty of a hate crime because of what you were thinking at the time you didn't actually commit a crime.


----------



## paradox

Is there a site record for most posts on a thread? LOL


----------



## Paumon

paradox said:


> Is there a site record for most posts on a thread? LOL


I think this thread holds the record. Or should I say it takes the cake?

It makes me think of The Never Ending Story, or the Song That Never Ends. 

Or Ever Ready's Energizer Bunny ..... beating his drum on a cake.


----------



## painterswife

The worse part is that the same question gets asked with 101 different scenarios and they expect people will change their position if they just keep asking the question again in another way.

How can you not get that some people believe that discrimination can be just as bad and some people chose against discrimination over freedom of religion.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Paragraph 5.
> 
> _The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._
> 
> That gives the federal government, via congress, the ability to write laws which they can force the States to do what it says. All it has to do is say the law is written to protect the privileges, immunities, life, liberty, or property of citizens.
> 
> Say the congress wants the states to set their speed limit to 15 mph. It passes a federal law demanding it based on the fact that doing so would protect the lives of citizens because almost all crashes at 15 mph would be survivable as opposed to the number of citizens being killed in crashes at 50+ mph.
> 
> Can you logically argue that such a law would not protect the lives of many citizens who would otherwise die? Well there you go its a constitutional law.
> 
> Think of any other thing the federal government would want to have control over and I'm sure a pol could easily find a way that giving that control to the feds would protect the privileges, immunities, life, liberty, or property of citizens thereby making it constitutional under the 14th.
> *
> Do you find any fault in the logic?*


Yes I do.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> The worse part is that the same question gets asked with 101 different scenarios and they expect people will change their position if they just keep asking the question again in another way.
> 
> How can you not get that some people believe that discrimination can be just as bad and *some people chose against discrimination over freedom of religion*.


So, you finally admit that you people oppose The Constitution of the United States of America.


----------



## Paumon

homstdr74 said:


> So, you finally admit that *you people* oppose The Constitution of the United States of America.


Define "you people". Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? :hrm:


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Define "you people". Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? :hrm:


The majority of liberals.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Define "you people". Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? :hrm:


Duplicate.


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> So, you finally admit that you people oppose The Constitution of the United States of America.


I don't oppose the constitution. I just don't believe that the writers ever believed that freedom of religion means that you don't have to obey the laws.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> How can you not get that some people believe that discrimination can be just as bad and some people chose against discrimination over freedom of religion.


Because forcing someone to do something against their religion is a form of discrimination ...


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> I don't oppose the constitution. I just don't believe that the writers ever believed that freedom of religion means *that you don't have to obey the laws.*


What law(s) did the baker not obey?


----------



## Vash

watcher said:


> Actually the 10th gives states power not limit it.


What I meant was that the 10th says, the states can do it ONLY if it isn't prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Because forcing someone to do something against their religion is a form of discrimination ...


The already bake cakes. They are not doing anything they don't already do.


----------



## arabian knight

painterswife said:


> The already bake cakes. They are not doing anything they don't already do.


They surer are if they ar baking against their religious beliefs. That is cut and dried.
What was the problem that the people could Take their business to another place? WHATS THEIR PROBLEM? They wanted to make a scene, and point out Hey Look At US we ARE GAY and that is all. 
This In Your Face stuff has to stop.


----------



## fishinshawn

Idiots. Treat people like you would like to be treated, pretty basic concept that I'd have thought everyone learned from their parents or their kindergarten teacher. Why does it matter if someone is gay, atheist, or christian. Personally, I have a very low opinion of Christians, also have a very low opinion of drug addicts, but if either comes into my store and wants a cake, a loaf of bread, I'd sell it to them, because this is a business transaction completely separate from personal feelings. I still smile and treat them exactly the way I want to be treated.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> They surer are if they ar baking against their religious beliefs. That is cut and dried.
> What was the problem that the people could Take their business to another place? WHATS THEIR PROBLEM? They wanted to make a scene, and point out Hey Look At US we ARE GAY and that is all.
> This In Your Face stuff has to stop.


How is baking a cake against their religious beliefs? Are they asking every customer that comes in what the product they are selling to them is for? If not then they are picking and choosing and not being consistent and not in my opinion holding true to any religious conviction. Therefore discrimination not religious conviction.


----------



## JeffreyD

fishinshawn said:


> Idiots. Treat people like you would like to be treated, pretty basic concept that I'd have thought everyone learned from their parents or their kindergarten teacher. Why does it matter if someone is gay, atheist, or christian. Personally, I have a very low opinion of Christians, also have a very low opinion of drug addicts, but if either comes into my store and wants a cake, a loaf of bread, I'd sell it to them, because this is a business transaction completely separate from personal feelings. I still smile and treat them exactly the way I want to be treated.


How very tolerant of you!


----------



## JeffreyD

It's interesting to see what atheist liberals REALLY think! Thanks!


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> It's interesting to see what atheist liberals REALLY think! Thanks!


Jeffrey, you're so obsessed with liberals you make me laugh. When homstdr74 said _"you people"_ you immediately interpret that as meaning liberals. If anyone says or does something you disagree with you automatically label them as a liberal. 
You're so predictable. :hysterical:


----------



## painterswife

If being against discrimination is being a liberal then I am proud to be called a liberal.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Jeffrey, you're so obsessed with liberals you make me laugh. When homstdr74 said _"you people"_ you immediately interpret that as meaning liberals. If anyone says or does something you disagree with you automatically label them as a liberal.
> You're so predictable. :hysterical:


So are you! I expected you to comment with nothing constructive to add, and here you are!! :bouncy:

Why does the truth bother you so much? It's well known that atheists and liberals have no tolerance for our Constitution or Christianity!


----------



## unregistered353870

fishinshawn said:


> Idiots. Treat people like you would like to be treated, pretty basic concept that I'd have thought everyone learned from their parents or their kindergarten teacher. Why does it matter if someone is gay, atheist, or christian. Personally, I have a very low opinion of Christians, also have a very low opinion of drug addicts, but if either comes into my store and wants a cake, a loaf of bread, I'd sell it to them, because this is a business transaction completely separate from personal feelings. I still smile and treat them exactly the way I want to be treated.


I agree people should treat people like they want to be treated, but I don't think laws should require them to do so.

I, however, don't have a low opinion of Christians in general. Most of the ones I know are wonderful people who treat me with nothing but respect and kindness. But there are some who give them a bad name, just like any group.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> I don't oppose the constitution. I just don't believe that the writers ever believed that *freedom of religion* means that you don't have to obey the laws.


That IS the law.


----------



## MJsLady

So let me see if I grasp this. I know this is over simplified.
Person A wants person B to do something for money or other compensation. Person B objects. If they just don`t want to that is ok. However if they have the audacity to say it is because it goes against the will of their Christian God they are to be ridiculed, harassed and pushed out of business and into debt. All because some one made a demand and they, within their rights under the USC said no.

Freedom of religion is a protected right. Getting a cake baked, a dress made or anything else are privileges.


----------



## Evons hubby

MJsLady said:


> So let me see if I grasp this. I know this is over simplified.
> Person A wants person B to do something for money or other compensation. Person B objects. If they just don`t want to that is ok. However if they have the audacity to say it is because it goes against the will of their Christian God they are to be ridiculed, harassed and pushed out of business and into debt. All because some one made a demand and they, within their rights under the USC said no.
> 
> Freedom of religion is a protected right. Getting a cake baked, a dress made or anything else are privileges.


ALL of our rights are supposed to be protected... not just Christians... and yet the practice of some religions can land a feller in jail. Don't believe me? Just let the DEA boys catch you in possession of peyote intended for use during a vision quest. Seems as though human sacrifice will be frowned upon as well. Bake the cake, sell it to whoever wants it and get on with life.


----------



## Paumon

MJsLady said:


> So let me see if I grasp this. I know this is over simplified.
> Person A wants person B to do something for money or other compensation. Person B objects. If they just don`t want to that is ok. However if they have the audacity to say it is because it goes against the will of their Christian God they are to be ridiculed, harassed and pushed out of business and into debt. All because some one made a demand and they, within their rights under the USC said no.
> 
> Freedom of religion is a protected right. Getting a cake baked, a dress made or anything else are privileges.


Freedom of religion is a protected right. It means you have the freedom to worship whatever God it pleases you to worship. That is all it means. Nothing else. 

Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to discriminate against others who don't have the same religious beliefs as you. Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on other people. Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to deny other people's pursuit of happiness in their own beliefs.

It only means you are free to worship your God.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Freedom of religion is a protected right. It means you have the freedom to worship whatever God it pleases you to worship. That is all it means. Nothing else.
> 
> Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to discriminate against others who don't have the same religious beliefs as you. Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on other people. Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to deny other people's pursuit of happiness in their own beliefs.
> 
> It only means you are free to worship your God.


Don't religion's have rules, laws, etc.... ? Shouldn't folks be tolerant of others religions and the rules they must follow? The case if the cake, shouldn't the gay buyers go elsewhere knowing that they were imposing themselves on someone else's beliefs? Or are the bakers at fault for going into business in the first place?

It's been an interesting thread, now we're just going in circles.


----------



## Paumon

Were the cakes religious? Was the baker creating Christian cakes? Do the cakes know the difference between one belief and another? I think not. The cakes won't discriminate over the religion of who bakes them or who buys them. 

The baker and the customers were both wrong and they were both stupid. They both discriminated against each other, the one for dogmaticly refusing to sell a product (that they'd have sold to anyone else who wasn't gay) due to what they mistakenly thought was their religious right and moral superiorty and the other for making a legal issue because they thought they were being denied personhood and made to feel inferior and non human.

Neither of them was using the intelligence you'd think they should have been born with.


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> If being against discrimination is being a liberal then I am proud to be called a liberal.


The difference between me and you is you want to force others to not be discriminatory, while I maintain that they have the Right per their religious beliefs to be discriminatory.

It makes no difference if I like it or not..They have that Right.
You on the other hand want them and their religious beliefs to be burned at the political correct stake..

Your solution is to violate their Constitutional Rights by creating laws and punishments for their supposed crime.

While I maintain there is no crime and if I and others don't like the way they treat people, then we won't do business with them. 

Do you see the difference? You and others propose to violate someone's Constitutional Rights, while me and others here say no, that is worse than the supposed "crime". 

So I guess I can sue the local tavern, at least according to your and others standards.

The tavern has a sign that reads: 
MEN: No shoes, No shirt No service
WOMEN: No Shirt Free Drinks

It's posted so at least they posted this per some peoples "standards" here..

So why aren't you and others on the discrimination band wagon here?

Yes I know it's a joke, but it is posted on their wall..


----------



## painterswife

beowoulf90 said:


> The difference between me and you is you want to force others to not be discriminatory, while I maintain that they have the Right per their religious beliefs to be discriminatory.
> 
> It makes no difference if I like it or not..They have that Right.
> You on the other hand want them and their religious beliefs to be burned at the political correct stake..
> 
> Your solution is to violate their Constitutional Rights by creating laws and punishments for their supposed crime.
> 
> While I maintain there is no crime and if I and others don't like the way they treat people, then we won't do business with them.
> 
> Do you see the difference? You and others propose to violate someone's Constitutional Rights, while me and others here say no, that is worse than the supposed "crime".
> 
> So I guess I can sue the local tavern, at least according to your and others standards.
> 
> The tavern has a sign that reads:
> MEN: No shoes, No shirt No service
> WOMEN: No Shirt Free Drinks
> 
> It's posted so at least they posted this per some peoples "standards" here..
> 
> So why aren't you and others on the discrimination band wagon here?
> 
> Yes I know it's a joke, but it is posted on their wall..


I will ask one question of you. Do you believe that someone religious practices trumps all laws?


----------



## mmoetc

beowoulf90 said:


> The difference between me and you is you want to force others to not be discriminatory, while I maintain that they have the Right per their religious beliefs to be discriminatory.
> 
> It makes no difference if I like it or not..They have that Right.
> You on the other hand want them and their religious beliefs to be burned at the political correct stake..
> 
> Your solution is to violate their Constitutional Rights by creating laws and punishments for their supposed crime.
> 
> While I maintain there is no crime and if I and others don't like the way they treat people, then we won't do business with them.
> 
> Do you see the difference? You and others propose to violate someone's Constitutional Rights, while me and others here say no, that is worse than the supposed "crime".
> 
> So I guess I can sue the local tavern, at least according to your and others standards.
> 
> The tavern has a sign that reads:
> MEN: No shoes, No shirt No service
> WOMEN: No Shirt Free Drinks
> 
> It's posted so at least they posted this per some peoples "standards" here..
> 
> So why aren't you and others on the discrimination band wagon here?
> 
> Yes I know it's a joke, but it is posted on their wall..


Because if you've read and followed this thread and paid attention to the legal rulings posted you'd realize that posting the sign isn't by itself discriminatory. Acting on it and giving topless women free drinks might be considered discriminatory or it might be seen as rewarding a behavior as all women have an equal ability to become topless. Such action might also draw other legal actions against the bar depending on local laws regarding public nudity. Let me know what night the theory will be tested.


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> I will ask one question of you. Do you believe that someone religious practices trumps all laws?


No,
And now you will say how can that be..

Easy, someones religion can say they can hate whom ever, and they can act accordingly until you violate that person's/groups Rights. Being discriminated against is not a violation of Rights. Harming them is.

We agree that discrimination is stupid, but we disagree as to how to stop it.

If a religion such as Islam says you can wed 12 yo girls or beat your wife etc, then you have violated their (the girl/wife) Rights. And needs to be stopped.

We have freedom of speech in this country but that freedom stops at the tip of my nose. Meaning I can say what ever I want and you can disagree with it and say what ever you want, but the moment you try to beat me down, you are wrong. You can't use force to stop me..

But that is exactly what those who believe that the baker should have to bake the cake for the gay couple are doing, they are using force to persuade others to their line of thinking.. All this by making laws..

There are so many laws already on the books that no one knows what even half of them are.. But that is another issue..

So lets go ahead and say you get your wish and the Government forces the baker to bake the cake and all bakers have to bake cakes for gays, regardless of their religious beliefs..

So what happens when a neo-nazi comes in and wants a cake celebrating the death of jews or Hitlers birthday.. Pick a topic..

Do you have to make it?

By your new "laws" you do, no matter if you are jewish, etc.. 

You would now also have to bake a cake with vulgar language on it even though you believe it is wrong. Can you imagine baking a cake telling your ex spouse to &*^% off?

I know I wouldn't make it.. But your new law can't discriminate against me or I will sue you for every penny I can...

Yea, all that because some don't believe in the Constitution and what it stands for.. They would rather trade Freedom for security..

You don't know how depressing that is to me to watch people trade freedom for slavery..


----------



## beowoulf90

mmoetc said:


> Because if you've read and followed this thread and paid attention to the legal rulings posted you'd realize that posting the sign isn't by itself discriminatory. Acting on it and giving topless women free drinks might be considered discriminatory or it might be seen as rewarding a behavior as all women have an equal ability to become topless. Such action might also draw other legal actions against the bar depending on local laws regarding public nudity. Let me know what night the theory will be tested.


No Problem, I will let you know when it is tested..

As to posting it by sign.. That was some's standard..


----------



## painterswife

beowoulf90 said:


> No,
> And now you will say how can that be..
> 
> Easy, someones religion can say they can hate whom ever, and they can act accordingly until you violate that person's/groups Rights. Being discriminated against is not a violation of Rights. Harming them is.
> 
> We agree that discrimination is stupid, but we disagree as to how to stop it.
> 
> If a religion such as Islam says you can wed 12 yo girls or beat your wife etc, then you have violated their (the girl/wife) Rights. And needs to be stopped.
> 
> We have freedom of speech in this country but that freedom stops at the tip of my nose. Meaning I can say what ever I want and you can disagree with it and say what ever you want, but the moment you try to beat me down, you are wrong. You can't use force to stop me..
> 
> But that is exactly what those who believe that the baker should have to bake the cake for the gay couple are doing, they are using force to persuade others to their line of thinking.. All this by making laws..
> 
> There are so many laws already on the books that no one knows what even half of them are.. But that is another issue..
> 
> So lets go ahead and say you get your wish and the Government forces the baker to bake the cake and all bakers have to bake cakes for gays, regardless of their religious beliefs..
> 
> So what happens when a neo-nazi comes in and wants a cake celebrating the death of jews or Hitlers birthday.. Pick a topic..
> 
> Do you have to make it?
> 
> By your new "laws" you do, no matter if you are jewish, etc..
> 
> You would now also have to bake a cake with vulgar language on it even though you believe it is wrong. Can you imagine baking a cake telling your ex spouse to &*^% off?
> 
> I know I wouldn't make it.. But your new law can't discriminate against me or I will sue you for every penny I can...
> 
> Yea, all that because some don't believe in the Constitution and what it stands for.. They would rather trade Freedom for security..
> 
> You don't know how depressing that is to me to watch people trade freedom for slavery..


Please note that I have never advocated that the baker should have to bake the cake. I have said that if they are following their religious convictions and making sure that no product they sell gets used in a way that is against their convictions then they are not discriminating. If they just pick and choose when it is easy they are discriminating and if the person being discriminated against wishes to have their day in court then I support them.


----------



## mmoetc

beowoulf90 said:


> No,
> And now you will say how can that be..
> 
> Easy, someones religion can say they can hate whom ever, and they can act accordingly until you violate that person's/groups Rights. Being discriminated against is not a violation of Rights. Harming them is.
> 
> We agree that discrimination is stupid, but we disagree as to how to stop it.
> 
> If a religion such as Islam says you can wed 12 yo girls or beat your wife etc, then you have violated their (the girl/wife) Rights. And needs to be stopped.
> 
> We have freedom of speech in this country but that freedom stops at the tip of my nose. Meaning I can say what ever I want and you can disagree with it and say what ever you want, but the moment you try to beat me down, you are wrong. You can't use force to stop me..
> 
> But that is exactly what those who believe that the baker should have to bake the cake for the gay couple are doing, they are using force to persuade others to their line of thinking.. All this by making laws..
> 
> There are so many laws already on the books that no one knows what even half of them are.. But that is another issue..
> 
> So lets go ahead and say you get your wish and the Government forces the baker to bake the cake and all bakers have to bake cakes for gays, regardless of their religious beliefs..
> 
> So what happens when a neo-nazi comes in and wants a cake celebrating the death of jews or Hitlers birthday.. Pick a topic..
> 
> Do you have to make it?
> 
> By your new "laws" you do, no matter if you are jewish, etc..
> 
> You would now also have to bake a cake with vulgar language on it even though you believe it is wrong. Can you imagine baking a cake telling your ex spouse to &*^% off?
> 
> I know I wouldn't make it.. But your new law can't discriminate against me or I will sue you for every penny I can...
> 
> Yea, all that because some don't believe in the Constitution and what it stands for.. They would rather trade Freedom for security..
> 
> You don't know how depressing that is to me to watch people trade freedom for slavery..


A raspberry filled lemon cake with buttercream frosting and icing roses is a raspberry filled lemon cake with buttercream frosting and icing roses. The bakers were not asked to do anything they hadn't done hundreds of times for other couples whose beliefs or even lifestyles may have conflicted with their religion. The difference in almost every hypothetical slippery slope scenario is that they require someone to do something they would not normally do in the course of their regular business activities. This is what defines one set of actions as discriminatory and actionable and one not.


----------



## MJsLady

I see the problem now.
People of the world are trying to tell people of Faith how to live their Faith. 
This can not be done. 
Telling a person of Faith to go against their Faith is like telling a pitcher with 2 broken arms to throw nothing but strikes or get fired. 

A Christian can NOT participate in anything that celebrates sin. Why? Because we are commanded not to. Everything we do is to be done for God. How can we offer God service by participating in that which he declares abominable? We can't. We are commanded in 1 Corinthians 10, Galatians 3 and Colossians 3 among others to do all to the glory of God. 

Simply put any participation on the part of a Christian, says they approve the activity. Just as those who stoned Steven in Acts 7 put their coats at the feet of Saul, having his approval of the murder. 

What keeps getting lost in this particular case is, a business may be sued, however it is a real flesh and blood human being forced into servitude to make the cake, take the picture what ever and that human has the right to say no. 

If they want to make demands why are they selecting Christians to make such demands of? Why not muslims? Because right now it is cool to discriminate against Christians and muslims in some part seem insulated from it. 

Also, most Christians take thou shalt not murder seriously. While the book the muslims follow tells them to kill gays and others who will not kowtow to it. I understand most ignore that but it is still commanded by their prophet.


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> I see the problem now.
> People of the world are trying to tell people of Faith how to live their Faith.
> This can not be done.
> Telling a person of Faith to go against their Faith is like telling a pitcher with 2 broken arms to throw nothing but strikes or get fired.
> 
> A Christian can NOT participate in anything that celebrates sin. Why? Because we are commanded not to. Everything we do is to be done for God. How can we offer God service by participating in that which he declares abominable? We can't. We are commanded in 1 Corinthians 10, Galatians 3 and Colossians 3 among others to do all to the glory of God.
> 
> Simply put any participation on the part of a Christian, says they approve the activity. Just as those who stoned Steven in Acts 7 put their coats at the feet of Saul, having his approval of the murder.
> 
> What keeps getting lost in this particular case is, a business may be sued, however it is a real flesh and blood human being forced into servitude to make the cake, take the picture what ever and that human has the right to say no.
> 
> If they want to make demands why are they selecting Christians to make such demands of? Why not muslims? Because right now it is cool to discriminate against Christians and muslims in some part seem insulated from it.
> 
> Also, most Christians take thou shalt not murder seriously. While the book the muslims follow tells them to kill gays and others who will not kowtow to it. I understand most ignore that but it is still commanded by their prophet.


I don't agree. I come from a family of several different religions. Christian , Mennonite, Buddhist, Jewish and Aboriginal religion. We don't expect different laws for each religion or that those religions should trump the laws.

Asking someone of religion to treat everyone without discrimination based on your religious beliefs is not telling people how to live their faith.


----------



## MJsLady

I did not mention religion. I said Faith. As in Eph 5. 
Religion is man's attempt to pigeonhole God in his own set of values. 

Faith means you go to the rule book that God set down for your guidance. 

How one lives is how they practice their Faith and or religion.

I have no issue with folks disagreeing with me. I stand on God's word. If folks have an issue with that, they need to take it up with him.


----------



## Paumon

MJsLady said:


> ....... If they want to make demands *why are they selecting Christians to make such demands of?* Why not muslims? Because right now it is cool to discriminate against Christians and muslims in some part seem insulated from it.


Okay, there's a reason for that, being that America is uniquely more Christian than any other country in the world with 76% of the American population identifying as Christian. It's almost impossible when anyone is making demands to not be making them of Christians because Christians are the national majority. So no matter what kind of demands are being made for whatever reason the odds are that they will be demanded of Christians, and more often than not it is Christians making demands of other Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Religion in the United States
Christianity (76%)
Other Religions (4%)
Non-Religious (15%)
Don't know/Not Stated (5%)


----------



## watcher

fishinshawn said:


> Idiots. Treat people like you would like to be treated, pretty basic concept that I'd have thought everyone learned from their parents or their kindergarten teacher. Why does it matter if someone is gay, atheist, or christian. Personally, I have a very low opinion of Christians, also have a very low opinion of drug addicts, but if either comes into my store and wants a cake, a loaf of bread, I'd sell it to them, because this is a business transaction completely separate from personal feelings. I still smile and treat them exactly the way I want to be treated.


That's fine and you are allowed the freedom to do that. But if your neighboring store owner wants to refuse to sell to Christians shouldn't he have that freedom as well? Or should you have the power to force him to sell his private property to the people YOU think he should?


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Freedom of religion is a protected right. It means you have the freedom to worship whatever God it pleases you to worship. That is all it means. Nothing else.
> 
> Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to discriminate against others who don't have the same religious beliefs as you. Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on other people. Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to deny other people's pursuit of happiness in their own beliefs.
> 
> It only means you are free to worship your God.


It also means the government can not force you to do something against your religious beliefs. If you believe it is wrong for you to handle anything related to swine the government should not be able to force you to handle grease which might have lard in it. It should also not force you to sell to a pig farmer.

But the religious aspect should have NOTHING to do with the point. You should have the freedom to sell your PRIVATE property to anyone you wish *and* you should have the right to NOT sell your PRIVATE property to anyone you do not sell to. It shouldn't matter if the reason you don't want to sell because of their race, religion, gender, height, weight or even the color of the pants they are wearing at the time. Its YOUR PRIVATE property and you should have the FREEDOM to do with it as you wish.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Please note that I have never advocated that the baker should have to bake the cake. I have said that if they are following their religious convictions and making sure that no product they sell gets used in a way that is against their convictions then they are not discriminating. If they just pick and choose when it is easy they are discriminating and if the person being discriminated against wishes to have their day in court then I support them.


Again taking the religion out of it. Why do you feel the government should have the power to force someone to sell their private property to an individual they do not wish to sell to? And once you give the government the power to tell you who you must sell to do you not see it is a *VERY* short step from it having the power to tell you who you may NOT sell to?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> A raspberry filled lemon cake with buttercream frosting and icing roses is a raspberry filled lemon cake with buttercream frosting and icing roses. The bakers were not asked to do anything they hadn't done hundreds of times for other couples whose beliefs or even lifestyles may have conflicted with their religion. The difference in almost every hypothetical slippery slope scenario is that they require someone to do something they would not normally do in the course of their regular business activities. This is what defines one set of actions as discriminatory and actionable and one not.


But they did not want to do it in this case but some here think the government should be forced to do it anyway. Don't people have the right to determine who they will sell their goods and labor to?


----------



## Vash

fishinshawn said:


> *Idiots.* Treat people like you would like to be treated, pretty basic concept that I'd have thought everyone learned from their parents or their kindergarten teacher. Why does it matter if someone is gay, atheist, or christian. Personally, I have a very low opinion of Christians, also have a very low opinion of drug addicts, but if either comes into my store and wants a cake, a loaf of bread, I'd sell it to them, because this is a business transaction completely separate from personal feelings. I still smile *and treat them exactly the way I want to be treated.*


So it would seem...?


----------



## Vash

Yvonne's hubby said:


> ALL of our rights are supposed to be protected... not just Christians... and yet the practice of some religions can land a feller in jail. Don't believe me? Just let the DEA boys catch you in possession of peyote intended for use during a vision quest. *Seems as though human sacrifice will be frowned upon as well*. Bake the cake, sell it to whoever wants it and get on with life.


Because that violates someone's 5th amendment right.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Again taking the religion out of it. Why do you feel the government should have the power to force someone to sell their private property to an individual they do not wish to sell to? And once you give the government the power to tell you who you must sell to do you not see it is a *VERY* short step from it having the power to tell you who you may NOT sell to?


I believe that as soon as you open a public business then you should not be allowed to discriminate. Otherwise operate a private club business and make your own rules.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Freedom of religion does not mean you have the right to deny other people's pursuit of happiness in their own beliefs.


Can you show me where in the 1st amendment it states religious freedom is guaranteed _but only as long as you don't hurt someones feelings_?

Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> *I believe that as soon as you open a public business then you should not be allowed to discriminate.* Otherwise operate a private club business and make your own rules.


Doesn't matter what _you believe_ if the law states otherwise.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Doesn't matter what _you believe_ if the law states otherwise.


The question was about what I believe not what the law is.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> The question was about what I believe not what the law is.


And my statement was only to confirm to the naysayers that the baker's actions, however unpopular they were to some, _were not against the law._


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> And my statement was only to confirm to the naysayers that the baker's actions, however unpopular they were to some, _were not against the law._


*It was against the law*. That state has discrimination laws. However the question now is were those laws constitutional.

I bolded just for you.


----------



## Paumon

watcher said:


> But they did not want to do it in this case but some here think the government should be forced to do it anyway. *Don't people have the right to determine who they will sell their goods and labor to?*


The rule of fair conduct is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I think that means people should be willing to compromise with each other with that Golden Rule in mind. 

If you are conducting a business with the public but you wish to discriminate against certain people and refuse your personal goods and labour to them you can do that. But you must be prepared to accept the punishing consequences of your discrimination because nobody wants to be discriminated against. 

Civilized, law abiding people who have been discriminated against may take their grievances against you to a higher authority who may deal with you legally as society demands. Other less civilized people may decide to take the law into their own hands and exact personal vengeance in their own illegal way against you. Their way might be vicious and catastrophic or even fatal for you and your family. When you discriminate against people in your business dealings you take your chances on losing everything including loss of life.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Civilized, law abiding people who have been discriminated against may take their grievances against you to a higher authority who may deal with you legally as society demands. Other less civilized people may decide to take the law into their own hands and exact personal vengeance in their own illegal way against you. Their way might be vicious and catastrophic or even fatal for you and your family. * When you discriminate against people in your business dealings you take your chances on losing everything including loss of life.*


Oh, I see. One should ignore their personal religious convictions because it may save their life...

:hysterical::hysterical:ound:ound:


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> It was against the law. *That state has discrimination laws.* However the question now is were those laws constitutional.


The Baker did not violate the couple's _constitutional rights_ (according to the 14th). 

I changed the bold in your quote.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> The Baker did not violate the couple's _constitutional rights_ (according to the 14th).
> 
> I changed the bold in your quote.


According to you. You should really qualify your answers as you are not final arbitrator on the laws and the constitution.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> According to you. You should really qualify your answers as you are not final arbitrator on the laws and the constitution.


:bored: Did you miss this?

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7015782-post1198.html

Pay particular attention to the parts in *BOLD*.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> Oh, I see. One should ignore their personal religious convictions because it may save their life...
> 
> :hysterical::hysterical:ound:ound:


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I believe that as soon as you open a public business then you should not be allowed to discriminate. Otherwise operate a private club business and make your own rules.


A public business selling private property means you lose your right to control that private property?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> A public business selling private property means you lose your right to control that private property?


It is property of the business and therefore subject to a myriad of laws with regards to commerce ( federal, state, county and city). In my opinion.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


Respecting beliefs should be a good start.

For example I, personally, have no problem with homosexuals. I do, however, have a problem with homosexuals that feel I should change my beliefs because they don't agree with them. :thumb:


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> The rule of fair conduct is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I think that means people should be willing to compromise with each other with that Golden Rule in mind.


Ok. 

A) If someone saw I was doing something they thought would result in me spending eternity in Hell I'd like it if they would 1) warn me and 2) not help me do it. Therefore that's the way I will treat people.

B) If someone didn't want to sell to me I would not force them to sell to me. Therefore I would like it if other people treated me the same way.




Paumon said:


> If you are conducting a business with the public but you wish to discriminate against certain people and refuse your personal goods and labour to them you can do that. But you must be prepared to accept the punishing consequences of your discrimination because nobody wants to be discriminated against.


I don't care if you discriminate against me any more than I care if you practice a different religion. I would no more force you to sell to me than I would to force you to change your religion.




Paumon said:


> Civilized, law abiding people who have been discriminated against may take their grievances against you to a higher authority who may deal with you legally as society demands.


Aye. . .there's the rub. Where does that "higher authority" get the power to tell an individual how to think and how he must act when it comes to controlling his own private property?




Paumon said:


> Other less civilized people may decide to take the law into their own hands and exact personal vengeance in their own illegal way against you. Their way might be vicious and catastrophic or even fatal for you and your family. When you discriminate against people in your business dealings you take your chances on losing everything including loss of life.


So its societal demands which get to set what is "right"? That's all beer and skittles right up to the point societal demands change in the direction you don't like. 

As I student of history, not in the 'sat in class and learned' way, I can tell you when that happens it happens in very bad ways. This is one of the reasons our constitution is so amazing. When applied evenly and properly, it limits government power and put the breaks on things that "society demands" which trample individual rights. Society might one day demand that you refuse to sell a Muslim or Jew or Christian or black or Oriental or a left handed person. Heck it may even demand that person be banned from owing property or worse. At that point would you still support what "society demands"? Why not? After all you have no problem with the government trampling the rights of an individual which wishes to sell his private property only to people he wants to sell to.


----------



## watcher

Paumon said:


> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


Got cha. So you are OK if I would want someone to kill me if I were not a follower of my religion (after all why would I want to suffer living in this world any longer than I had to if there were no way I could make it into the wonderful afterlife, allowing me live would be very cruel would it not?) I should treat you that way. And you'd be OK with that?

Trite sayings (and Bible verses taken out of context) sound SOOOO good until you take them out to the worldly extreme.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> It is property of the business and therefore subject to a myriad of laws with regards to commerce ( federal, state, county and city). In my opinion.


So you do think you lose your rights to private property once you go into business. No prob. We just think differently. To me unless its public property its private property and if its private property the government has no power to tell me who I can or can not give, trade or sell it to unless that exchange is a clear danger to others or a violation of another right expressed in the USC.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> So you do think you lose your rights to private property once you go into business. No prob. We just think differently. To me unless its public property its private property and if its private property the government has no power to tell me who I can or can not give, trade or sell it to unless that exchange is a clear danger to others or a violation of another right expressed in the USC.


Well I believe that the government on behalf of the people does have the right to make laws with regards to business.


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> I believe that as soon as you open a public business then you should not be allowed to discriminate. Otherwise operate a private club business and make your own rules.


Following one's faith is not merely "discrimination", which really does not apply in this case. In order for "discrimination" to apply here, you would have to apply the word equally to all who have fought actual discrimination for centuries---for millennia, actually. Christians have been at the forefront of opposing prejudice against many actually oppressed people. 

Using the term "discrimination" for political motivations such as these homosexual agenda people are doing is tacky, or, to be more precise, is discriminating against those who have done more for society than these "change-agents" could possibly dream of ever doing. 

Besides being selfish, resentful and vengeful, the left is (via the homosexual agenda people) attempting to put Christians out of business, much as the Klan did during the 1920's when they boycotted Catholic businesses until the owners had to, in many instances, close up shop. 

You can't have "equality" both ways. Either the Christian shop owner can run his or her shop as they choose, or you pass laws against their faith so that they have to close up shop. What is the difference between you and the Klan? 

When does Krystallnacht begin?


----------



## painterswife

homstdr74 said:


> Following one's faith is not merely "discrimination", which really does not apply in this case. In order for "discrimination" to apply here, you would have to apply the word equally to all who have fought actual discrimination for centuries---for millennia, actually. Christians have been at the forefront of opposing prejudice against many actually oppressed people.
> 
> Using the term "discrimination" for political motivations such as these homosexual agenda people are doing is tacky, or, to be more precise, is discriminating against those who have done more for society than these "change-agents" could possibly dream of ever doing.
> 
> Besides being selfish, resentful and vengeful, the left is (via the homosexual agenda people) attempting to put Christians out of business, much as the Klan did during the 1920's when they boycotted Catholic businesses until the owners had to, in many instances, close up shop.
> 
> You can't have "equality" both ways. Either the Christian shop owner can run his or her shop as they choose, or you pass laws against their faith so that they have to close up shop. What is the difference between you and the Klan?
> 
> When does Krystallnacht begin?


They discriminated if they did not make sure that every cake, cookie or treat was not used to celebrate something that would not be against their religion or faith. I would have no problem if they did that . I would stand beside them in fighting it in court. I won't stand with them if they only do it when it suits them to.

I don't want it both ways. I want them to choose and follow through on all circumstances. This is not a homosexual agenda, it is being against discrimination.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> *They discriminated if they did not make sure that every cake, cookie or treat was not used to celebrate something that would not be against their religion or faith.* I would have no problem if they did that . I would stand beside them in fighting it in court. I won't stand with them if they only do it when it suits them to.
> 
> I don't want it both ways. I want them to choose and follow through on all circumstances. This is not a homosexual agenda, it is being against discrimination.


Is there something somewhere that says they didn't or don't?


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Is there something somewhere that says they didn't or don't?


Is there something somewhere that says they do?


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Is there something somewhere that says they do?


So how can anyone say he's discriminating?


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> So how can anyone say he's discriminating?


The Colorado baker made a wedding cake for two dogs and therefore could not prove that he was holding up his religious convictions by denying a wedding cake to two men.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The Colorado baker made a wedding cake for two dogs and therefore could not prove that he was holding up his religious convictions by denying a wedding cake to two men.


 
:hysterical:Where the dogs gay?


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> The Colorado baker made a wedding cake for two dogs and therefore could not prove that he was holding up his religious convictions by denying a wedding cake to two men.


Being a dog is a sin? Making cakes for dogs is the same as making cake for gays? THAT sounds like discrimination to me.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Being a dog is a sin? Making cakes for dogs is the same as making cake for gays?


Making a wedding cake is so important to his religion that he can't make it for a gay couple but he can make it for dogs. That says volumes about his religious convictions with regards to marriage. It also proves that he picks and chooses how important that marriage cake is to his religion.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Making a wedding cake is so important to his religion that he can't make it for a gay couple but he can make it for dogs. That says volumes about his religious convictions with regards to marriage. It also proves that he picks and chooses how important that marriage cake is to his religion.


 
I hate to break it to you PW but dogs can't 'really' get married.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I hate to break it to you PW but dogs can't 'really' get married.


And that makes any difference? The gay couple could not get married in his state either. He discriminated and it was proven by his actions. Your poking fun at his discrimination just not make it anything less.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Making a wedding cake is so important to his religion that he can't make it for a gay couple but it can make it for dogs. That says volumes about his religious convictions with regards to marriage. It also proves that he picks and chooses how important that marriage cake is to his religion.


Wow ...







Wow ...



First, the dogs are _amoral_ and can't possibly use the cake for a purpose that is in conflict with the baker's beliefs unless their owners do something in which case it's the owners and not the _animals_.

Secondly, dogs can't get married (legally speaking). So making a cake for dogs doesn't say anything about his view on marriage. You're assuming.

Thirdly, again, the cake is _amoral_.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> *And that makes any difference?* The gay couple could not get married in his state either. He discriminated and it was proven by his actions. Your poking fun at his discrimination just not make it anything less.


Yes, yes it does.


----------



## Paumon

Someone needs to break it to the baker that dogs can't get married.

Oh wait - maybe they were Christian dogs.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Yes, yes it does.


You were the one asking for proof he did not discriminate. I provided proof.


----------



## painterswife

Vash said:


> Yes, yes it does.


Legally they could not get married either in Colorado either.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> And that makes any difference? The gay couple could not get married in his state either. He discriminated and it was proven by his actions. Your poking fun at his discrimination just not make it anything less.


 
If you want to believe a pretend doggy wedding is the same as a gay wedding more power to you! I think it's hilarious.ound:

As for gay weddings being illegal in the state....it would seem to me then that the gay couple was hiring him to do an illegal activity which he turned down and then the court forced him to participate in an illegal activity.:facepalm:


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> If you want to believe a pretend doggy wedding is the same as a gay wedding more power to you! I think it's hilarious.ound:
> 
> As for gay weddings being illegal in the state....it would seem to me then that the gay couple was hiring him to do an illegal activity and the court forced him to participate in an illegal activity.:facepalm:


They asked him to make a cake not bake pot into it or perform the wedding. Strawman.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> You were the one asking for proof he did not discriminate. I provided proof.


No, no and no.

Making a cake for dogs and not the gay couple means he recognizes the difference between an amoral party (the dogs) and the party (gay couple) that were planning an activity that goes into direct conflict with his religious beliefs.

Whether or not they could legally get married is irrelevant because the baker _does not support homosexuality_ because of his religion.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> They asked him to make a cake not bake pot into it or perform the wedding. Strawman.


 
Whatever, illegal is still illegal.:hysterical:


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> *They asked him* to make a cake not bake pot into it or perform the wedding. Strawman.


There's the crux. They _asked_ and he said no. 

He was well within his rights to say no. He's probably said no to a lot of people (and probably not all were homosexuals).

They didn't like the answer and are now demanding that every time they ask he has to say yes.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> No, no and no.
> 
> Making a cake for dogs and not the gay couple means he recognizes the difference between an amoral party (the dogs) and the party (gay couple) that were *planning an activity that goes into direct conflict with his religious beliefs.*
> 
> Whether or not they could legally get married is irrelevant because the baker _does not support homosexuality_ because of his religion.


What activity were they planning that goes against his religious beliefs?


----------



## dixiegal62

First y'all get all up in arms saying the baker broke the law, making comment after comment about how this baker discriminating was illegal pointing that out 100s of times in this thread......... turns out gay marriage was illegal in their state.... the baker refused to do something illegal and now your all for doing illegal activities if you 'really believe' in them. What a joke!


----------



## Paumon

What is illegal about baking a cake? It doesn't matter what the cake was in honour of, there's nothing illegal about baking a cake.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> What activity were they planning that goes against his religious beliefs?


Hurr...did you miss this part?




Vash said:


> Whether or not they could legally get married is irrelevant* because the baker does not support homosexuality* because of his religion.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> First y'all get all up in arms saying the baker broke the law, making comment after comment about how this baker discriminating was illegal pointing that out 100s of times in this thread......... turns out gay marriage was illegal in their state.... the baker refused to do something illegal and now your all for doing illegal activities if you 'really believe' in them. What a joke!


Using that logic the bake illegally baked a cake for an illegal marriage between dogs.

Baking a cake for any occasion is not illegal but you will not admit to that because it will not back up your position.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Baking a cake for any occasion is not illegal but you will not admit to that because it will not back up your position.


The baker's refusal wasn't based on a legality but on his religious convictions and beliefs.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> What is illegal about baking a cake? It doesn't matter what the cake was in honour of, there's nothing illegal about baking a cake.


 
Yes it would seem all of the sudden illegal activities are peachy keen.:nono: Funny how that works isn't it? If you can't see the irony in that you need to take a step back and think about it. As far as I'm concerned all of yours and a few others indignation over the baker breaking laws is just a bunch of empty talk now. Evidentially you think only a select few can have their cake and it too.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes it would seem all of the sudden illegal activities are peachy keen.:nono: Funny how that works isn't it? If you can't see the irony in that you need to take a step back and think about it. As far as I'm concerned all of yours and a few others indignation over the baker breaking laws is just a bunch of empty talk now. Evidentially you think only a select few can have their cake and it too.




Still would like to know how baking a wedding cake is illegal? Can you be charged in a court of law for that?


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> Still would like to know how baking a wedding cake is illegal? Can you be charged in a court of law for that?


Strawman.

Also, painterswife, could you please establish what exactly your position is on this topic, because as of right now you are all over the place.

First you say you're against discrimination period. 

Then you say the baker should post a sign that says he doesn't make cakes for certain parties OR that he needs to ask _everyone_ what the cake would be for and refuse (IE "discriminate") to make a cake for those that are against his religious beliefs. 

Now you are saying because he bakes cakes for dogs and not gays (as if there is some kind of twisted equivalent in your mind) he is discriminating but NOT based on his religious beliefs.


I've posted the direct text and SC interpretations of the 14th amendment relevant to the topic at hand. You've stated he baked cakes for dogs, which is technically not true, because dogs can't purchase cakes. The baker made an agreement with the owners who were using the cakes for a purpose that was not in direct conflict with his beliefs.

Dogs don't carry US citizenship and are not afforded citizenship rights, BTW.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Still would like to know how baking a wedding cake is illegal? Can you be charged in a court of law for that?


 
Would you ok with baking a cake for a 40 year old man to marry a 10 year old girl?


----------



## MJsLady

Helping someone participate in an illegal activity makes you an accomplice.
Regardless of religion.


----------



## Paumon

Vash said:


> Hurr...did you miss this part?





> Originally Posted by *Vash*
> _Whether or not they could legally get married is irrelevant* because the baker does not support homosexuality* because of his religion._


So how would he know if they were homosexuals? Did he ask them? There are lots of same sex couples who get married that are not homosexuals and do not get married to engage in any kind of sexual activity. Ever.

There are also millions of heterosexual couples who engage in sodomy. Sodomy is anal or oral intercourse (which includes humans with humans and humans with animals) - see the full definition of sodomy here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy 

If the baker is refusing to bake a cake for anybody because he's assuming they're going to commit sodomy or any other "un-natural sexual act" then the only way he can follow through on his conviction is by confirming it with the customer. He has to ask every customer for every wedding cake ordered regardless of their gender if they're planning on committing sodomy or some other un-natural act.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> So how would he know if they were homosexuals? Did he ask them? There are lots of same sex couples who get married that are not homosexuals and do not get married to engage in any kind of sexual activity. Ever.


Really? The Bible very clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether a same sex couple engages in homosexuality physically is irrelevant because _they are a same sex couple_.




Paumon said:


> There are also millions of heterosexual couples who engage in sodomy (which includes humans with humans and humans with animals) - see the full definition of sodomy here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy
> 
> If the baker is refusing to bake a cake for anybody because he's assuming they're going to commit sodomy or any other "un-natural sexual act" then the only way he can follow through on his conviction is by confirming it with the customer. He has to ask every customer for every wedding cake ordered regardless of their gender if they're planning on committing sodomy or some other un-natural act.


Another strawman.

He refused the cake to the gay couple because _they are a gay couple_.


Seriously? First gays are compared to dogs now they are being compared to specific sexual activity...


----------



## unregistered353870

This went from weird to insane.


----------



## dixiegal62

dixiegal62 said:


> Would you ok with baking a cake for a 40 year old man to marry a 10 year old girl?


 
*crickets*


They can't say no because it's illegal for a child to marry, because according to them baking the cake isn't illegal and it has nothing to do with what the cake will be used for. Has nothing to do with laws.

They can't say no its immoral because according to them making the cake isn't participating in an act they don't believe in it's just making a cake and it's nobodies business what the cake will be used for.


----------



## dixiegal62

jtbrandt said:


> This went from weird to insane.


 
They're leading we're just following their lead


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> This went from weird to insane.


Agreed. And I think we've reached a stale mate.


----------



## dixiegal62

Paumon said:


> Agreed. And I think we've reached a stale mate.


Actually I think y'alls position took a huge nose dive right about the time y'all decided to let the dogs out


----------



## Paumon

dixiegal62 said:


> Actually I think y'alls position took a huge nose dive right about the time y'all decided to let the dogs out


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sLR0vgpeWI[/ame]


----------



## mmoetc

First of all their marriage wasn't illegal. It was performed in Massachusetts where weddings between same sex couples are legal. The cake was to be used for a reception being held in their home town. It's a common practice by many couples straight and gay who hold destination weddings that everyone cannot attend. Last I checked it's not illegal to have a party and eat cake.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> First of all their marriage wasn't illegal. It was performed in Massachusetts where weddings between same sex couples are legal. The cake was to be used for a reception being held in their home town. It's a common practice by many couples straight and gay who hold destination weddings that everyone cannot attend. Last I checked it's not illegal to have a party and eat cake.


 
How about this... you go ahead and practice your right to marry whomever you want and follow the path in life you believe in and I'll do the same. I am perfectly happy and willing for you to be able to follow your religion or no religion and for you to follow your core beliefs, the question is are you willing to allow me the same? As for this thread its been entertaining but I'll just be reading from now on, it's just gotten too silly for me to take it seriously anymore. Enjoy!


----------



## homstdr74

painterswife said:


> They discriminated if they did not make sure that every cake, cookie or treat was not used to celebrate something that would not be against their religion or faith. I would have no problem if they did that . I would stand beside them in fighting it in court. I won't stand with them if they only do it when it suits them to.
> 
> I don't want it both ways. I want them to choose and follow through on all circumstances. This is not a homosexual agenda, it is being against discrimination.


You can parse words anyway you want, it is still discrimination against the business owners, and it is done by the left who are using the homosexual agenda to further undermine this Nation.


----------



## beowoulf90

Paumon said:


> The rule of fair conduct is *"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"*. I think that means people should be willing to compromise with each other with that Golden Rule in mind.
> 
> If you are conducting a business with the public but you wish to discriminate against certain people and refuse your personal goods and labour to them you can do that. But you must be prepared to accept the punishing consequences of your discrimination because nobody wants to be discriminated against.
> 
> Civilized, law abiding people who have been discriminated against may take their grievances against you to a higher authority who may deal with you legally as society demands. Other less civilized people may decide to take the law into their own hands and exact personal vengeance in their own illegal way against you. Their way might be vicious and catastrophic or even fatal for you and your family. When you discriminate against people in your business dealings you take your chances on losing everything including loss of life.


So since you choose to force me to do and say as you see fit, then I can force you to do and say as I see fit..

You choose to use force and the threat of law against me if I won't sell to certain people. Yet you whine if I do the same to you..

Live by the sword, die by the sword.. 

The only difference is some of us have more experience with the sword than others.

No this isn't any type of veiled threat or a threat of any kind.. It is just to say that those who want the force of Government and threat of imprisonment etc to enforce their brand of law should remember, like a sword it cuts both ways. They should also remember that some of us have more experience handling that double edged weapon..


----------



## painterswife

The baker lost his case because he could not prove that baking wedding cakes had to do with his religion. He baked a wedding cake for a pair of dogs. You may not agree, you make think it is silly but it is the reality.

Yes, they were legally married. I knew if I threw out that neither the dogs or the same sex couple could get wedding licenses in Colorado you would all run with it and try to make it all about that. Predictable.

I will say it again. They discriminated.
If they always asked what their products were for and made sure they were not being used to celebrate something against their religion then there would be no discrimination. They would then prevail in their court case.


----------



## unregistered353870

> If they always asked what their products were for and made sure they were not being used to celebrate something against their religion then there would be no discrimination.


I don't see how that wouldn't still be discrimination. It would just be more consistent discrimination.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> I don't see how that wouldn't still be discrimination. It would just be more consistent discrimination.


It is discrimination by definition but not discrimination with regards to our laws. You can have guidelines you operate under as long as you enforce them equally. 
You might still be taken to court and have to have a real reason for your guidelines ( religion or safety for example) but if you don't pick and choose when to enforce your guidelines you should win.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> I don't oppose the constitution. I just don't believe that the writers ever believed that freedom of religion means that you don't have to obey the laws.


.............
.............
.............
??????????

I just had to let that one sit there and sink in.


Maybe everything I was ever taught about history and the foundation of this country was incorrect.
Maybe I've been asleep for 50 years.
But from what I was told, the writers of the Constitution defied and intentionally broke the laws of the royalty of Europe, and one of the main reasons they DID it.........was freedom of religion.
:hrm:


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> .............
> .............
> .............
> ??????????
> 
> I just had to let that one sit there and sink in.
> 
> 
> Maybe everything I was ever taught about history and the foundation of this country was incorrect.
> Maybe I've been asleep for 50 years.
> But from what I was told, the writers of the Constitution defied and intentionally broke the laws of the royalty of Europe, and one of the main reasons they DID it.........was freedom of religion.
> :hrm:


Freedom of religion does not trump laws protecting others.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Well I believe that the government on behalf of the people does have the right to make laws with regards to business.


And what limits are there on the government's ability to make those laws? Not that long ago governments had laws which forbid blacks from going into some businesses. And it was even ruled constitutional. Did that make it all ok?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> They discriminated if they did not make sure that every cake, cookie or treat was not used to celebrate something that would not be against their religion or faith. I would have no problem if they did that . I would stand beside them in fighting it in court. I won't stand with them if they only do it when it suits them to.
> 
> I don't want it both ways. I want them to choose and follow through on all circumstances. This is not a homosexual agenda, it is being against discrimination.


Not true based on their belief. The Bible says if you don't know the meat you are about to eat was a sacrifice to an idol then there's no problem in you eating it. But if you are told it was an idol sacrifice then you should not eat it.

So if the gay couple had ordered a cake and had not told the bakers what it was for there would have been no religious conflict for the bakers.

But again religion is only a small part of the issue. The larger part is government control of private property.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> And what limits are there on the government's ability to make those laws? Not that long ago governments had laws which forbid blacks from going into some businesses. And it was even ruled constitutional. Did that make it all ok?


The people are the limit. They decide when to fight, when they feel the need to take it to the courts.


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> The baker lost his case because he could not prove that baking wedding cakes had to do with his religion. He baked a wedding cake for a pair of dogs. You may not agree, you make think it is silly but it is the reality.
> 
> Yes, they were legally married. I knew if I threw out that neither the dogs or the same sex couple could get wedding licenses in Colorado you would all run with it and try to make it all about that. Predictable.
> 
> I will say it again. They discriminated.
> If they always asked what their products were for and made sure they were not being used to celebrate something against their religion then there would be no discrimination. They would then prevail in their court case.


Dred Scott also lost his case..

So does that make it right?


----------



## MJsLady

Protecting others from what? Hurt feelings? You know, I guess I would be more sympathetic if the baker's refusal some how hurt the couple. All that got hurt was their feelings, or pride and instead of being grown up they lashed out and sought revenge. 

I would have more respect for them as people if they had let the baker alone and moved on. 

Watcher, I am glad you at least understand the point of the Christians. I agree that shouldn't need to be mentioned. However Christians are becoming easy targets and it gets tiresome. We are called to be a peculiar people, and some can not stand those who will not conform to the popular ideals. 

Once this precedent is set where will it stop?

If you have 2 kidneys and it becomes known you were tested to see if yours would work for a coworker and a person asks you to do the same for them and you say no, can the government force you to do it? 

Extreme yes but the root is the same. You did it for another therefore you should do it for anyone who demands it.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> It is discrimination by definition but not discrimination with regards to our laws. You can have guidelines you operate under as long as you enforce them equally.
> You might still be taken to court and have to have a real reason for your guidelines ( religion or safety for example) but if you don't pick and choose when to enforce your guidelines you should win.


That makes more sense. I do take issue with a court deciding whether a person is faithful enough to their religion, though. Freedom of religion should also include freedom to be a hypocrite in regards to that religion.


----------



## Vash

painterswife said:


> *
> Yes, they were legally married. I knew if I threw out that neither the dogs or the same sex couple could get wedding licenses in Colorado you would all run with it and try to make it all about that. Predictable.*


People responding to your absurdities isn't "running with it". Especially since you can't decide what exactly you are for and against.



painterswife said:


> I will say it again. *They discriminated.*
> If they always asked what their products were for and made sure they were not being used to celebrate something against their religion then there would be no discrimination. They would then prevail in their court case.


Which you're OK with according to your other posts. :bored:

Again what constitutional rights were violated besides the Bakers 1st amendment rights?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> The people are the limit. They decide when to fight, when they feel the need to take it to the courts.


I'm confused. If the people are the government and by extension the courts then why would the court ever rule against a law passed by the people's government? If the majority of people want a law saying that gays should not have the ability to marry then shouldn't the courts just butt out and let the people set the limit they want?


----------



## greg273

homstdr74 said:


> You can parse words anyway you want, it is still discrimination against the business owners, and it is done by the left who are using the homosexual agenda to further undermine this Nation.


 What is their 'agenda'? To be treated fairly?? Awwww.....


----------



## greg273

deleted


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> I'm confused. If the people are the government and by extension the courts then why would the court ever rule against a law passed by the people's government? If the majority of people want a law saying that gays should not have the ability to marry then shouldn't the courts just butt out and let the people set the limit they want?



You know darn well that its not how our nation is set up. It takes more than a simple majority to a pass an amendment to the constitution. We get reminded time and again that we are not a 'democracy', and not subject to the 'tyranny of the majority'. This is a perfect example why things are set up that way. Equality is for* all*, not just the majority.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> What is their 'agenda'? To be treated fairly?? Awwww.....


To force their lifestyle on those that don't agree with it, but you knew that!!


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> You know darn well that its not how our nation is set up. It takes more than a simple majority to a pass an amendment to the constitution. We get reminded time and again that we are not a 'democracy', and not subject to the 'tyranny of the majority'. This is a perfect example why things are set up that way. Equality is for* all*, not just the majority.


Our nation is undergoing a transformation, for the worst! We ARE becoming a nation were the mob rules because they are the majority. Half our country is on welfare now and not paying any taxes. Are they going to willingly allow their entitlements to be taken away? Of course not, and that, is buying votes with the money from taxpayers. Look at my state, California, the liberals had a majority and passed anything they wanted, especially anything to do with taxes or gun control. Now that the Caldron brothers got caught for corruption and bribes, Wright for the same thing and Yee got caught for illegal arms trade with muslims,( had to do with automatic weapons and missile launchers) they don't have a super majority any longer.


About Democratic Senator Lee:

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...nator-arrested-for-firearms-conspiracy-in-phl

A California senator was arrested Wednesday over charges of corruption and an alleged conspiracy to illegally deal in firearms, even as a report indicated he may have dealt with a "Muslim separatist group in the Philippines."

And the federal level is just as bad! If you think all is peachy keen, just open your eye's and take a look around without jaded glasses! Our President and most of the senate, consider our Constitution a stumbling block and side step it often. He has done things that call for impeachment, but the lame republicans in the house are afraid and just sit on their thumbs and let it happen. Spineless turds!


----------



## farmrbrown

All my previous posts were found to be lacking sufficient support that there is a difference between the restrictions laid out on the government by the constitution versus the rights that you have as a private person/property owner.
Maybe there has been a perversion of property rights that the courts have upheld, maybe it's misinformation that is generally accepted, maybe just wishful thinking, I'm not sure which.(?)
In any case there seems to be a double standard or dual set of rules/laws that are being alternately used to preserve some rights and take away other rights at the same time, depending on the specific circumstances.

So, a question for those who say you lose some of your rights to control your own property when you open a business.............an individual's constitutional rights take precedent when even when I walk over the threshold of your business.

Can I still carry my firearm, assuming you have a sign on the door prohibiting it? After all, you're open to the public, where did my 2nd amendment right go?
OK if I have a beer and smoke while I'm waiting too? That's my right to ya know.

Lot's of businesses have rules and restrictions on employees and customers too. ID badges, no cell phones, no tobacco, alcohol or firearms, the list goes on.
They are open to the public, may or may not have rules over and above to city/county/state laws and they do this every day.
That's their business, that's their right and unless that piece of land is mine I'm standing on, I'm not going to say squat about it.


----------



## homstdr74

greg273 said:


> What is their 'agenda'? To be treated fairly?? Awwww.....


If you people were to run on your own merit, rather than declaring that you want the same âfairnessâ sought after by the actual Civil Rights Movement of the African Americans (who had some *real *issues to fight), you might have a point. But you donât. You see, what you have done by declaring how âunfairâ the entire world is to you, is to put yourselves smack into a situation of being covert racists, and little else. Irresponsible whining that the âworld is so cruel and unfairâ never gets a positive response in a civilized world. 



greg273 said:


> You know darn well that its not how our nation is set up. It takes more than a simple majority to a pass an amendment to the constitution. We get reminded time and again that we are not a 'democracy', and not subject to the 'tyranny of the majority'. This is a perfect example why things are set up that way. Equality is for* all*, not just the majority.


OK, if âEquality is for allâ, define what exactly you are talking about---what "equality" means. You are either for or against all equality for everyone. If you are such a believer in equality, you must think that equal income levels are fair. Also equal intelligence, equal housing, equal car ownership, equal job opportunities, equal education, and equal savingsâ¦.. I suppose you would put all that under equal "rights"? Yet it should be obvious to anyone that there is no equality under those things, and since there is not, why are we debating whether there is âequality in cake buyingâ?

What is the value of your arbitrary ceremony now?


----------



## greg273

homstdr74 said:


> If you are such a believer in equality, you must think that equal income levels are fair. Also equal intelligence, equal housing, equal car ownership, equal job opportunities, equal education, and equal savingsâ¦.. I suppose you would put all that under equal "rights"?


 
You would suppose wrong. Seriously, your post is so over-the-top and full of wrong assumptions it's just best left alone. If you want to practice discrimination based on sexual preference, go ahead. Just don't expect to hide behind the cover of the law. And don't try and use 'religion' as an excuse either.


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> To force their lifestyle on those that don't agree with it, but you knew that!!


 No one is 'forcing a lifestyle' on you, but you knew that.


----------



## arabian knight

JeffreyD said:


> To force their lifestyle on those that don't agree with it, but you knew that!!


You bet. And this in your face, "Hey Look I am gay I am special I want to be treated special" has got to be stopped. How else would that bakery even have known about these gays unless they paraded around saying so? That is the In Your Face that is getting Americans upset.


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> If you people were to run on your own merit, rather than declaring that you want the same âfairnessâ sought after by the actual Civil Rights Movement of the African Americans (who had some *real *issues to fight), you might have a point. But you donât. You see, what you have done by declaring how âunfairâ the entire world is to you, is to put yourselves smack into a situation of being covert racists, and little else. Irresponsible whining that the âworld is so cruel and unfairâ never gets a positive response in a civilized world.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, if âEquality is for allâ, define what exactly you are talking about---what "equality" means. You are either for or against all equality for everyone. If you are such a believer in equality, you must think that equal income levels are fair. Also equal intelligence, equal housing, equal car ownership, equal job opportunities, equal education, and equal savingsâ¦.. I suppose you would put all that under equal "rights"? Yet it should be obvious to anyone that there is no equality under those things, and since there is not, why are we debating whether there is âequality in cake buyingâ?
> 
> What is the value of your arbitrary ceremony now?


Equality of outcome is different than equality of opportunity. Next you'll tell me that no matter how hard I work or what education I get I don't have an equal opportunity to get rich. What's this country coming to?


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> You bet. And this in your face, "Hey Look I am gay I am special I want to be treated special" has got to be stopped. How else would that bakery even have known about these gays unless they paraded around saying so? That is the In Your Face that is getting Americans upset.


Maybe because just like many straight couples who "parade" into the bakery they walked in together.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> Equality of outcome is different than equality of opportunity. Next you'll tell me that no matter how hard I work or what education I get I don't have an equal opportunity to get rich. What's this country coming to?


OK, fair enough. Next youâll tell me that homosexuals, no matter how hard they try, donât have an equal opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. Whatâs this country coming to?


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> OK, fair enough. Next you&#8217;ll tell me that homosexuals, no matter how hard they try, don&#8217;t have an equal opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. What&#8217;s this country coming to?


No they very much have the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. The good news is that increasingly everyone is getting the equal opportunity to marry who they love regardless of sex.


----------



## homstdr74

greg273 said:


> You would suppose wrong. Seriously, your post is so over-the-top and full of *wrong assumptions* it's just best left alone. If you want to practice discrimination based on sexual preference, go ahead. *Just don't expect to hide behind the cover of the law. And don't try and use 'religion' as an excuse either*.


I never "assume" anything. The entire homosexual agenda is mainly an assertion of white privilege which claims that sexual desires are RIGHTS, not mere preferences. Do you think that the slaves had the economic clout to push for their freedom from slavery? No, slavery has no analog, is unique, and by stealing the concept of the Civil Rights Movement to simply *use* as their own, homosexuals have undermined the entire concept of freedom in order that they can be exhibitionists in front of all America, showing off what they do for cheap thrills in order that they might obtain trillions of dollars from the Federal Treasury.

That is the summation of what has happened.

BTW: It might go better for you in this life if, when confronted by someone with whom you disagree and who is correct and you know it, you did not make some *discriminatory* attempt to censor their remarks or try to in any way try to dictate to them how they should practice their faith.


----------



## homstdr74

[quote from another poster taken out of context but changed to better reflect the truth of the situation---parentheses mine]

"No they very much have the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. The good news is that increasingly everyone is getting the equal opportunity to marry who they think they" (lust after) "regardless of sex".[/quote]

There. Fixed that quote.


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> There. Fixed it for you.


Didn't need fixing. I'm not sure when I gave you editorial license over my remarks but I'd like to rescind it now.


----------



## arabian knight

homstdr74 said:


> There. Fixed it for you.


 That was cool.


----------



## unregistered353870

farmrbrown said:


> So, a question for those who say you lose some of your rights to control your own property when you open a business.............an individual's constitutional rights take precedent when even when I walk over the threshold of your business.
> 
> Can I still carry my firearm, assuming you have a sign on the door prohibiting it? After all, you're open to the public, where did my 2nd amendment right go?


Excellent point. I'll jump ahead to the probable response...as long as you forbid ALL customers from carrying guns, it's acceptable, but if you only forbid certain people it isn't.

Not my argument, but what I would expect to come next. Anybody want to claim this argument I've initiated on your behalf so it can be hashed out?


----------



## greg273

homstdr74 said:


> BTW: It might go better for you in this life if, when confronted by someone with whom you disagree and who is correct and you know it, you did not make some *discriminatory* attempt to censor their remarks or try to in any way try to dictate to them how they should practice their faith.


 THis coming from a someone who just edited someone elses post to their own liking. Classic. 
And as I said, you 'practice' your faith all you want. But hiding your fear and bigotry behind the guise of 'practicing your religion' isn't going to fly in this country. Whats next? 'Straight only' drinking fountains?


----------



## JeffreyD

:


greg273 said:


> No one is 'forcing a lifestyle' on you, but you knew that.


Sure they are, but you knew that too!


----------



## greg273

Someone help me out here, where did Jesus say 'don't do business with gays'? I can't seem to find that particular passage.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> Excellent point. I'll jump ahead to the probable response...as long as you forbid ALL customers from carrying guns, it's acceptable, but if you only forbid certain people it isn't.
> 
> Not my argument, but what I would expect to come next. Anybody want to claim this argument I've initiated on your behalf so it can be hashed out?


Different issues. As a business I can prohibit all sorts of activities from happening in my store. I can even prohibit people from engaging in sexual acts in my aisles. I can't prohibit someone from being being gay or black or Hispanic or even Christian. They just are or they aren't.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> Different issues. As a business I can prohibit all sorts of activities from happening in my store. I can even prohibit people from engaging in sexual acts in my aisles. I can't prohibit someone from being being gay or black or Hispanic or even Christian. They just are or they aren't.


That's better than mine.


----------



## Paumon

mmoetc said:


> Didn't need fixing. I'm not sure when I gave you editorial license over my remarks but I'd like to rescind it now.


I'm pretty sure it's against HT forum rules for anyone to alter the wording in another person's posts that they're quoting, especially not to change the wording to mean something totally different from what was said. 

Anyway I have reported it to the moderator because if one person can break the rules and and think they have the "freedom" to get away with it and another person like AK thinks it's "cool" then the next thing you know lots of people who think it's "cool" will be exercising the "freedom" to break the rules too.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Someone help me out here, where did Jesus say 'don't do business with gays'? I can't seem to find that particular passage.


And I don't think you'll find one like that in Jesus' own words. More likely you'll find just the opposite. Paul however cautioned against it, perhaps knowing that we are all weaker in the flesh than He was.:shrug:



mmoetc said:


> Different issues. As a business *I can prohibit all sorts of activities from happening in my store. * I can even prohibit people from engaging in sexual acts in my aisles. *I can't prohibit someone from being being gay* or black or Hispanic or even Christian. They just are or they aren't.


You mean, you can prohibit things in your store, even if the customers claims it's a constitutional right?
I'm sure there could be other discrepancies, like whether it was clearly posted, whether it was an across-the-board policy, whether it was an established or newly changed policy........but at any rate, I was under the impression that a constitutional right couldn't be denied by a store owner?
I'm giving benefit of the doubt of course, that the 14th amendment and the commerce clause protects our right to buy a wedding cake.
That *was* the issue in this case BTW, not a prohibition on *being* gay. I think the bakery shop didn't try to go THAT far.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> And I don't think you'll find one like that in Jesus' own words. More likely you'll find just the opposite. Paul however cautioned against it, perhaps knowing that we are all weaker in the flesh than He was.:shrug:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, you can prohibit things in your store, even if the customers claims it's a constitutional right?
> I'm sure there could be other discrepancies, like whether it was clearly posted, whether it was an across-the-board policy, whether it was an established or newly changed policy........but at any rate, I was under the impression that a constitutional right couldn't be denied by a store owner?
> I'm giving benefit of the doubt of course, that the 14th amendment and the commerce clause protects our right to buy a wedding cake.
> That *was* the issue in this case BTW, not a prohibition on *being* gay. I think the bakery shop didn't try to go THAT far.


Even though I'm sure you're being a bit disingenuous I'll address this seriously. Businesses have the right to limit even constitutionally protected behavior on their grounds. They can ban firearms. They can and do post signs prohibiting solicitation infringing on free speech. I've been to many a drinking establishment that have policies against the wearing of motorcycle club colors thus denying free expression. I suppose a bakery could have a policy that states that couples aren't allowed to come in and buy wedding cakes but it would seem rather self defeating.


----------



## homstdr74

greg273 said:


> THis coming from a someone who just edited someone elses post to their own liking. Classic.
> And as I said, you 'practice' your faith all you want. But *hiding your fear and bigotry behind the guise of 'practicing your religion' *isn't going to fly in this country. Whats next? 'Straight only' drinking fountains?


Typical remark from the heterophobic crowd. I'll be awaiting something original. Oh, original means something you yourself have to say. 

There are more polite ways to insult someone. Try this:

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quotes/shakespeareinsults.html

ound:


----------



## homstdr74

greg273 said:


> Someone help me out here, where did Jesus say 'don't do business with gays'? I can't seem to find that particular passage.


Was Jesus a businessman? I read somewhere that His earthly father was a carpenter.


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> I'm pretty sure it's against HT forum rules for anyone to alter the wording in another person's posts that they're quoting, especially not to change the wording to mean something totally different from what was said.
> 
> Anyway I have reported it to the moderator because if one person can break the rules and and think they have the "freedom" to get away with it and another person like AK thinks it's "cool" then the next thing you know lots of people who think it's "cool" will be exercising the "freedom" to break the rules too.


What rules govern the board? 

*Homesteading Today asks that all participants do their best to follow one simple rule:* *Be nice.* Being nice means being civil, polite, disagreeing in a civil manner, not calling names, and using tact when stating your opinion. The moderators of this site do their best to enforce this rule in a fair and impartial way, but cannot read every post. If you see a post which you feel does not adhere to the Rule, please click the link at the bottom left of that post marked "report post." The moderators will then have a look at it and determine if action needs to be taken. It is the policy of the mods on this forum to approach rule violators privately, and we would recommend that you all do the same if you are having a problem with someone. The public forum is no place for personal attacks. That said, please concentrate first on adhering to these guidelines yourself, and aside from alerting the mods to unsavory activity, do not attempt to "enforce" the rules here. We'll take care of it. Some may call this censorship. We do not. We call it civility. Any questions, feel free to contact the mods at any time


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Even though I'm sure you're being a bit disingenuous I'll address this seriously.
> 
> *Businesses have the right to limit even constitutionally protected behavior on their grounds. *
> 
> 
> They can ban firearms. They can and do post signs prohibiting solicitation infringing on free speech. I've been to many a drinking establishment that have policies against the wearing of motorcycle club colors thus denying free expression. I suppose a bakery could have a policy that states that couples aren't allowed to come in and buy wedding cakes but it would seem rather self defeating.



I wasn't being disingenuous, but I was taking my opponents position and asking for clarification.
Some customers can still buy a cake, but those exercising a legal right that the owner disagrees with, will not be served.
The gun owner could leave his gun in the car, giving up his/her right, and the gay couple could choose to give up theirs, or else all customers that were turned away could continue looking for a store that would serve them as they are.
The position was taken was that a store owner lost their right to curtail or deny a customer's constitutional right. A customer's rights took precedent over a business owner, due to being open to the public.

That being the position, I'm asking why other enumerated rights are ok being denied?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I wasn't being disingenuous, but I was taking my opponents position and asking for clarification.
> Some customers can still buy a cake, but those exercising a legal right that the owner disagrees with, will not be served.
> The gun owner could leave his gun in the car, giving up his/her right, and the gay couple could choose to give up theirs, or else all customers that were turned away could continue looking for a store that would serve them as they are.
> The position was taken was that a store owner lost their right to curtail or deny a customer's constitutional right. A customer's rights took precedent over a business owner, due to being open to the public.
> 
> That being the position, I'm asking why other enumerated rights are ok being denied?


The simple answer is is that they are being denied equally. You either allow everyone to carry a gun in our you deny that right to everyone. You either ban solicitation or you allow anyone in to approach your customers with offers. You ban motorcycle colors or you allow them to be worn. You either sell wedding cakes or you don't.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> The simple answer is is that they are being denied equally.
> 
> You either allow everyone to carry a gun in our you deny that right to everyone.
> 
> You either ban solicitation or you allow anyone in to approach your customers with offers.
> 
> You ban motorcycle colors or you allow them to be worn.
> 
> You either sell wedding cakes or you don't.



Why is only the last example the one where you can no longer keep your business open to sell your product?
In the first three examples, the behavior or offending customer is refused, but the business stays open to others that comply.
I don't disagree that the business owner has the right to set up his rules of conduct. I've been in businesses that were examples of all 3 (firearms, solicitation, colors) and I either complied or was turned away.
But the business wasn't forced to change their policy or else close their doors to the public.
What is it about this particular right, the right to be gay, that trumps the rights of a business and property owner that he must allow them to be his customer, even if he doesn't want to?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Why is only the last example the one where you can no longer keep your business open to sell your product?
> In the first three examples, the behavior or offending customer is refused, but the business stays open to others that comply.
> I don't disagree that the business owner has the right to set up his rules of conduct. I've been in businesses that were examples of all 3 (firearms, solicitation, colors) and I either complied or was turned away.
> But the business wasn't forced to change their policy or else close their doors to the public.
> What is it about this particular right, the right to be gay, that trumps the rights of a business and property owner that he must allow them to be his customer, even if he doesn't want to?


The store can remain open whether it allows customers in to buy cakes or not. It is the act of buying a cake, or any other item, that is being unfairly limited. Just as it would be the act of carrying a gun or any of the other examples that is being limited. It has nothing specific to do with being gay as the same standard would exist if a gay baker refused to bake a cake for a Christian wedding.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Why is only the last example the one where you can no longer keep your business open to sell your product?
> In the first three examples, the behavior or offending customer is refused, but the business stays open to others that comply.
> I don't disagree that the business owner has the right to set up his rules of conduct. I've been in businesses that were examples of all 3 (firearms, solicitation, colors) and I either complied or was turned away.
> But the business wasn't forced to change their policy or else close their doors to the public.
> What is it about this particular right, the right to be gay, that trumps the rights of a business and property owner that he must allow them to be his customer, even if he doesn't want to?


In rereading my post I realized I stated the last option poorly. It should more properly be stated that the bakery can allow all customers to buy wedding cakes or none.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> The simple answer is is that they are being denied equally. You either allow everyone to carry a gun in our you deny that right to everyone. You either ban solicitation or you allow anyone in to approach your customers with offers. You ban motorcycle colors or you allow them to be worn. You either sell wedding cakes or you don't.


OK, here's another one from left field...what if a business wants to only allow police to carry guns in their store? Not a completely unlikely scenario, but would that be unacceptable discrimination against non-police?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> In rereading my post I realized I stated the last option poorly. It should more properly be stated that the bakery can allow all customers to buy wedding cakes or none.




No, I don't think either way you say it makes much difference.
I said from the outset that I would be surprised if people didn't advocate for certain types of discrimination and not others, depending on their own personal viewpoints. That's human nature. We want freedom, but only _our kind of freedom_.

You can argue that certain kinds of discrimination and curtailment of rights by the owner of a private property is legal, perhaps even necessary and in some cases downright the smart and sensible way to go.

As above, I can't think of a more "free" gathering than a bunch of drunk, armed, loud-mouthed, gang members of opposing groups.
And if I was the owner of such an establishment, I'd think that was a real dumb way to run it.......and not for very long, lol.:facepalm:

We'd likely agree that's not the kind of people we want to attract to our business.
But when it comes to other types of restrictions to who we serve beer and chips to.....................:buds:


----------



## Paumon

homstdr74 said:


> *What rules govern the board?* ........


You'd have to take it up with the mods about what all the rules are since they're the ones that enforce them. Sufficient to say you did something that I think goes well beyond breaking the "be nice" rule so I reported it. I think it's not one bit cool what you did and I feel it's something the mods should know about and to be fair to you now you also know that I reported it. If I see you or anyone else doing the same thing again I will report it again. What the mods do about those posts once they're reported is their business and not my concern.


----------



## homstdr74

jtbrandt said:


> OK, here's another one from left field...what if a business wants to only allow police to carry guns in their store? Not a completely unlikely scenario, but would that be unacceptable discrimination against non-police?


Then there's Starbucks, which won't allow Law Enforcement to carry their weapons into the store. My Deputy Sheriff son tells me that there is no one on his department who will enter a Starbucks place. Some say they may not no matter the reason.


----------



## homstdr74

Paumon said:


> You'd have to take it up with the mods about what *all the rules *are since they're the ones that enforce them. Sufficient to say you did something that I think goes well beyond breaking the "be nice" rule so I reported it. I think it's not one bit cool what you did and I feel it's something the mods should know about and to be fair to you now you also know that I reported it. If I see you or anyone else doing the same thing again I will report it again. What the mods do about those posts once they're reported is their business and not my concern.


No, not "all the rules". Once again:

"What rules govern the board? 

*Homesteading Today asks that all participants do their best to follow one simple rule:**Be nice.* Being nice means being civil, polite, disagreeing in a civil manner, not calling names, and using tact when stating your opinion."

What does "being nice" mean? Obviously one person's "nice" is another person's "hate", or there wouldn't be any "hate crimes", "hate speech" etc. or any other perverse "laws" imposed upon the innocent citizenry by Nero. 

Besides, in a forum about homesteading, a thread about sexual deviancies among the urbanites and their rulers is only meant as a cautionary tale. In my world, even speaking about sexual deviancies *IS NOT NICE. *Yet I didn't report *YOU* to the mods.


----------



## mmoetc

homstdr74 said:


> Then there's Starbucks, which won't allow Law Enforcement to carry their weapons into the store. My Deputy Sheriff son tells me that there is no one on his department who will enter a Starbucks place. Some say they may not no matter the reason.


Starbucks stated corporate policy was outlined in an open letter to its customers last fall. In it they asked that no one brings a gun into their stores but implemented no ban and said they would ask no one to leave if they were carrying.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> Starbucks stated corporate policy was outlined in an open letter to its customers last fall. In it they asked that no one brings a gun into their stores but implemented no ban and said they would ask no one to leave if they were carrying.


Yeah I read all that online too. Doesn't change their attitude much.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> No, I don't think either way you say it makes much difference.
> I said from the outset that I would be surprised if people didn't advocate for certain types of discrimination and not others, depending on their own personal viewpoints. That's human nature. We want freedom, but only _our kind of freedom_.
> 
> You can argue that certain kinds of discrimination and curtailment of rights by te owner of a private property is legal, perhaps even necessary and in some cases downright the smart and sensible way to go.
> 
> As above, I can't think of a more "free" gathering than a bunch of drunk, armed, loud-mouthed, gang members of opposing groups.
> And if I was the owner of such an establishment, I'd think that was a real dumb way to run it.......and not for very long, lol.:facepalm:
> 
> We'd likely agree that's not the kind of people we want to attract to our business.
> But when it comes to other types of restrictions to who we serve beer and chips to.....................:buds:


It makes a difference to me for consistency in that my second example better defines the business limiting an action by others while the first is soley an action the business takes itself. Semantics yes, but important to me.

Now, you seem to imply that I am advocating discrimination due to some viewpoint. At least in this case I am not. My viewpoint would be exactly the same regardless of who tried to buy the cake and who denied it. To me its not about gays, religion or weddings. It is about ensuring that everyone has the same free and open access to places and opportunity.


----------



## mmoetc

But it does correct the misinformation that Starbucks "won't allow" law enforcement officers to carry in their stores. And it was done without editing another's post.


----------



## Vash

Paumon said:


> You'd have to take it up with the mods about what all the rules are since they're the ones that enforce them. Sufficient to say you did something that I think goes well beyond breaking the "be nice" rule so I reported it. I think it's not one bit cool what you did and I feel it's something the mods should know about and to be fair to you now you also know that I reported it. If I see you or anyone else doing the same thing again I will report it again. What the mods do about those posts once they're reported is their business and not my concern.


You got your feelings hurt by someone doing something you didn't like and go to the authorities...


Why does that sound oddly familiar?:rotfl:


----------



## Ambereyes

I just read through this whole thread last night, do I get a t-shirt or something other than just a headache? :shocked:


----------



## Vash

Ambereyes said:


> I just read through this whole thread last night, do I get a t-shirt or something other than just a headache? :shocked:


You get to question everything you thought you knew about cakes...


----------



## arabian knight

Now for a nice bowl of RICE KRISPIES to munch on while the reading this. At night, popcorn goes very nice with all this back and forth, and nobody is going to change anybody's mind on here. It was not wrong for the bakery to do what they did, but it was wrong for that gay couple to parade this in front of the media just to get Attention. And bring that Attention not only to themselves, but to the entire country. THAT kind of childs play is what some can't stomach.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> But it does correct the misinformation that Starbucks "won't allow" law enforcement officers to carry in their stores. And it was done without editing another's post.


IF you believe the guy who wrote that online piece. Me, I'm cynical and, at least in this case, am a follower of old Ben Franklin's words: âBelieve none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.â (If that much).

BTW: Look back at the post that seems to have put your nose out of joint and tell me if that satisfies your interpretation of Hoyle.


----------



## homstdr74

mmoetc said:


> In rereading my post I realized I stated the last option poorly. *It should more properly be stated that the bakery can allow all customers to buy wedding cakes or none*.


There's a car lot in a nearby town that always has dozens of older cars in it. One day I went in to ask about a nice station wagon I thought I could get for one of my sons. I was told that they wouldn't sell me any car off their lot, that they only sold cars to dealers, not private individuals. So I went off on my way without the station wagon and didn't think another thing about it. Eventually we purchased a nice pickup truck from another lot. BTW: There was no sign at the first lot that stated anything other than they are a used car lot. 

Does that fall within the purview of your rules and regulations as to what businesses can and can't do, or do you have some subsection "3" paragraph "a" that makes it OK?


----------



## Vash

greg273 said:


> Someone help me out here, where did Jesus say 'don't do business with gays'? I can't seem to find that particular passage.


Acts 15:20 (James, preaching on the teaching of Jesus)

Spin it how you wish, but there is certainly nothing in the bible that says we are to _enable_ one of the biblical definitions of sexual immorality.


----------



## greg273

Vash said:


> Acts 15:20 (James, preaching on the teaching of Jesus)
> 
> Spin it how you wish, but there is certainly nothing in the bible that says we are to _enable_ one of the biblical definitions of sexual immorality.


 Thats pretty weak justification for bigotry. How about 'whatever you do to the least of them , you do to me', 'love thy neighbor as thyself', and a whole host of other passages that implore us to treat ALL with kindness? The anti-gay folks want to take an already persecuted minority and heap MORE persecution on them. Not a very Christian thing to do, in my humble opinion. 
You can cherry pick a few verses from the bible, (none of which spoken by Jesus, by the way) to try and justifiy one's bigotry, or you can take the VAST majority of the bible and see it clearly says to treat others as you would have them treat you. 
Many of you up in arms about 'the gays' are laboring under the illusion that they are 'sinning' by being attracted to the same sex... sorry to inform you, but God made them that way. Surely you must have noticed that some men are more feminine, and some women more masculine than is considered 'normal'??? That right there should tell you something very important about this issue and whether they are 'sinners' because of the way they are.


----------

