Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dissention embrace's censorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Equality before the law means exactly that. You're the one here equating homosexuality with racial profiling, which is meaningless because religions are not questioning skin color, but some do not accept homosexuality. You just compared apples and carburetors.

    And BTW, black people already denigrate whites every chance they get, and they frequently complain about the racial make-up of everything from motion pictures to advertising. You might want to look around every once in a while and see what is actually going on. Again, you're going in the wrong direction.

    Mind if I compel you to do something extremely distasteful to yourself? And sue the crap out of you if you refuse for any reason? Personally, I would want you to refuse me because I have no right to compel you to do anything against your will, let alone dictate what you must create and/or sell.

    Here's something for you to chew on, however; all a gay couple has to do is purchase a wedding cake, go down to any average store and buy two grooms/brides/whatevers and put them on the cake themselves. So why didn't they? Because they deliberately set out to cause trouble.

    The lawsuit shows clearly that they are looking to create a public incident to advance their cause, and compelling a business owner to be their patsy is unacceptable.

    Now, go find a gay bakery and demand that they make you a large cake for a public gathering that openly bashes gays, and be sure and sue them if they refuse, which I fervently hope they do. Then call the ACLU and see if they will help you for free. (No, they won't.)
    Difference here is that a t shirt bashing gays is something that a intolerant Gov or groups would approve of. What makes The USA the greatest country in the world today is our moral values coupled with having the strongest military and a good economy. Btw The US used to be #1 in terms of economy by country worldwide thanks to FDR and the common American black and white Christian alike.

    Unity is something history approves of. The 3rd post itt in small part shows how LGBT people were accepted in the past contrary to what some in our world may think. Creating a t shirt that is pro LGBT is something that is good, its a feel good thing which would be pro American.

    But to each there own. I know you grew up in a different time compared to myself. In going forward maybe you change your view. I have evolved on certain issues, such as gay marriage and the death penalty. I now support gay marriage and oppose the death penalty, but in the past both of those views were opposite. I also would sell a t shirt that is pro LGBT and maybe you can eventually agree with this.

    Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

    George S Patton

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

      Do you have proof that the business owner has anything in common with ISIL or the Klan other than conjecture?

      The entire discussion comes down to "The feelings " of the LGBT community.
      Roe vs. Wade was decided on the pretense that abortion was protected under the right to privacy. Does the business owner have the same right to privacy? Is it anyone else's business why the power decided to turn down a job?
      Yes its because the store owner in the OP like ISIL and the Klan does...is discriminating against someone based on whom they are.

      Edit: Abortion is comparable to refusing to sell a t shirt to a LGBT couple. Abortion is wrong, discriminating is wrong. I think we should get along.
      Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
      Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

      George S Patton

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

        Pork would be on the menu if it were up to me. So now you offended me. A catering business owned by a Muslim or for that matter a Jew would by religious beliefs be unable to fill the order and thereby would hurt my feelings.
        Why couldn't I bring a suit against them?
        I'm not sure how I can explain how discrimination works to an adult. I thought I've been very clear thus far. Remember, I said earlier that an artist does not have to provide lewd or pornographic work if he doesn't desire. So you cannot go to him, ask for something pornographic, and then claim discrimination if he doesn't provide it. If he wouldn't provide pornographic material to anyone, then that is not discrimination. If a Muslim wouldn't provide pork to anyone, that's not discrimination.

        All that's being asked is that business owners provide the same service for everyone. Whatever that service is limited to, it has to be applied equally. If a Muslim is asked to cater a Christian wedding he has to provide service. He does not, however, have to grant them special treatment.

        Again, an equivalent of granting special treatment, would be providing pornographic work for a homosexual, despite not providing that type of work for heterosexuals. I've already said that's not ok. That's not what's being asked. That's not what I'm suggesting needs to occur. Same service for everyone is the concept. I'm not sure why you're not understanding that.
        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

          I'm not sure how I can explain how discrimination works to an adult. I thought I've been very clear thus far. Remember, I said earlier that an artist does not have to provide lewd or pornographic work if he doesn't desire. So you cannot go to him, ask for something pornographic, and then claim discrimination if he doesn't provide it. If he wouldn't provide pornographic material to anyone, then that is not discrimination. If a Muslim wouldn't provide pork to anyone, that's not discrimination.

          All that's being asked is that business owners provide the same service for everyone. Whatever that service is limited to, it has to be applied equally. If a Muslim is asked to cater a Christian wedding he has to provide service. He does not, however, have to grant them special treatment.

          Again, an equivalent of granting special treatment, would be providing pornographic work for a homosexual, despite not providing that type of work for heterosexuals. I've already said that's not ok. That's not what's being asked. That's not what I'm suggesting needs to occur. Same service for everyone is the concept. I'm not sure why you're not understanding that.
          So, if the Muslim catering the Christian wedding is asked specifically to supply foods that are not Halal, like Ham or say rum cake can say "no," but a Christian (or Muslim) catering a homosexual wedding is forced to do so even if their religion says homosexuality is a sin and they might go to hell, purgatory, etc., for doing so...?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

            There is a difference between selling a t-shirt off the shelf to a person and making custom made to order shirt.
            Yes, and I've acknowledged that difference already. If you're willing to print 'straight pride' then you have to print 'gay pride' as well. If you refuse to do anything related to sexual orientation then that's entirely different and perfectly acceptable as it applies to everyone and thus wouldn't be an act of discrimination.

            make a custom cake with decorations I decided where offensive to me, which party is the winning hand?
            Ironic. Who's the easily offended party here, when you're making the argument that something as trivial as cake decorations is enough to offend someone.

            If I sell t-shirts and someone asked me to make a shirt with an obvious racist slur I should be able to deny them service if it offended me. But wouldn't that offend the racist?
            My argument has never been about what is or isn't offensive. That's something you've consistently brought into the equation. My argument has been based on enhancing freedom by not discriminating against certain groups. Anytime discrimination is allowed, you in turn limit the freedom of the group being discriminated against.


            The point of free speech has nothing to do with feelings.
            Then Christians should be allowed to stone their children to death, yes or no?
            "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
            - Benjamin Franklin

            The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

              Pork would be on the menu if it were up to me. So now you offended me. A catering business owned by a Muslim or for that matter a Jew would by religious beliefs be unable to fill the order and thereby would hurt my feelings.
              Why couldn't I bring a suit against them?
              Not necessarily here. Some Muslims and Jews do eat pork, drink and play poker...I know some from the casinos.
              Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
              Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

              George S Patton

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                So, if the Muslim catering the Christian wedding is asked specifically to supply foods that are not Halal, like Ham or say rum cake can say "no," but a Christian (or Muslim) catering a homosexual wedding is forced to do so even if their religion says homosexuality is a sin and they might go to hell, purgatory, etc., for doing so...?
                re-read.
                "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                - Benjamin Franklin

                The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                Comment


                • #53
                  UH

                  I wanted to add to your comparison in this thread that oneís diet is different from ones sexuality. In Other words it would be unreasonable to ask a vegetarian to cook you a meat plate. And it would be unreasonable to turn down an LGBT person who wants a pro LGBT shirt.

                  It would be unreasonable for me to go into a Halal or kosher store and demand pork.
                  Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                  Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                  George S Patton

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post
                    UH

                    I wanted to add to your comparison in this thread that oneís diet is different from ones sexuality. In Other words it would be unreasonable to ask a vegetarian to cook you a meat plate. And it would be unreasonable to turn down an LGBT person who wants a pro LGBT shirt.

                    It would be unreasonable for me to go into a Halal or kosher store and demand pork.
                    Very true, However, the comparison works because the customers diet violates the vendors religious beliefs. Just as in the case before the court, the vendor declined a sale because the content of the product would violate that individuals religious beliefs.
                    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                      Yes, and I've acknowledged that difference already. If you're willing to print 'straight pride' then you have to print 'gay pride' as well. If you refuse to do anything related to sexual orientation then that's entirely different and perfectly acceptable as it applies to everyone and thus wouldn't be an act of discrimination.



                      Ironic. Who's the easily offended party here, when you're making the argument that something as trivial as cake decorations is enough to offend someone.



                      My argument has never been about what is or isn't offensive. That's something you've consistently brought into the equation. My argument has been based on enhancing freedom by not discriminating against certain groups. Anytime discrimination is allowed, you in turn limit the freedom of the group being discriminated against.




                      Then Christians should be allowed to stone their children to death, yes or no?
                      That is a very poor comparison, the act of stoning is written about in the old testament, Christianity was not established until many years after the crucifixion of Christ, At the time the followers of Christ were a Jewish sect. They were persecuted by the leadership of the Jewish community and were the victims of the stoning.
                      This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Christianity, The Old Testament is the history of the JEWISH people. The New Testament is the history of the life of Christ and the early followers of Christ who were JEWISH.
                      The Christian church was not established by the disciples of Christ, They called themselves THE WAY, and again were Jewish.
                      It was not until Saul, who was a tax collector and was involved in hunting down members of THE WAY to be stoned, was converted to the sect by a vision he.
                      He then, against the wishes of the surviving disciples, began his ministry converting non Jews to the religion, Saul took the name of Paul, and was persecuted by both the Romans and the Jews and even the followers of the surviving disciples.
                      Paul was the founder of the Christian Church.
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                        Very true, However, the comparison works because the customers diet violates the vendors religious beliefs. Just as in the case before the court, the vendor declined a sale because the content of the product would violate that individuals religious beliefs.
                        I donít see it that way partner. Hereís the issue for Many Christianity allows LGBT marriage. And to deny a LGBT person because they are LGBT is not nice. Itís also not nice to ignore or disregard oneís own personal diet.

                        Itís not proper or dignified for one to attempt to use their religion to support Bigotry I would add that. I feel religion is a good thing and it does not support bigotry
                        Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                        Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                        George S Patton

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                          The Bible says that parents should stone disobedient children to death. I would ask if you agree with something like this, but you stated that free speech isn't about agreeing with the speech. As such, by your logic, Christians should be afforded the freedom to do so, regardless of what the law says or the rest of society thinks of the practice.


                          Your analogy doesn't work for a number of reasons.

                          I can say that I support Biblical type punishments and no "content based" law can stop me from saying so.
                          And no "content based" law could stop you from stating disapproval.

                          I don't get how you equate saying something and doing something.
                          They are not the same thing. The first amendment protects my rights to say and believe what I like no matter what you think. It does not give me the right to act in any way, particularly towards others.

                          Also, I find it interesting that you overlook the most important aspect of your whole analogy.
                          Regardless, of what I may believe the bible tells me to do, the victims of your hypothetical stoning have rights too.
                          Their right not to be harmed outweighs any right I may have to believe in anything.

                          I found this aspect of your reasoning interesting because it is one of the enormous flaws in the left's arguments on abortion.
                          (i.e. the rights of the victim)


                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

                            I donít see it that way partner. Hereís the issue for Many Christianity allows LGBT marriage. And to deny a LGBT person because they are LGBT is not nice. Itís also not nice to ignore or disregard oneís own personal diet.

                            Itís not proper or dignified for one to attempt to use their religion to support Bigotry I would add that. I feel religion is a good thing and it does not support bigotry


                            Isn't ignoring religious beliefs also the very type of bigotry you are seeking to condemn? Your own post makes the need for such protection clear.

                            The "Majestic Bakery" case that went to the SCOTUS presented a legitimate issue that the SCOTUS avoided addressing.
                            The gay couple in that case has rights that deserve protection, however, the baker also had rights that deserved protection.
                            The problem that the SCOTUS will eventually have to address is how to balance those interests.
                            The reason the SCOTUS was able to avoid addressing that issue was because the hearing officers in the Baker's case openly ignored the baker's religious rights and weer clearly biased against him.

                            Your argument that relying on religious beliefs isn't dignified makes it clear why religious beliefs need protection.
                            We, as a society, don't get to decide what religious beliefs are "dignified". The 1st Amendment prohibits any such analysis.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

                              I donít see it that way partner. Hereís the issue for Many Christianity allows LGBT marriage. And to deny a LGBT person because they are LGBT is not nice. Itís also not nice to ignore or disregard oneís own personal diet.

                              Itís not proper or dignified for one to attempt to use their religion to support Bigotry I would add that. I feel religion is a good thing and it does not support bigotry
                              Bigotry based on someone's appearance is one thing. How would most people know that a person is gay unless the gay person told them ?
                              I can tell if a person is black, Oriental, or a member of another race. So if the person running a business turned down a potential customer because they looked gay. that is one thing. But if the business owner turned down a special request by a customer because the content of the order was offensive to the business owner, isn't that protected free speech being exercised by the business owner?
                              Example, a customer comes into my T-shirt shop and to purchase a product I printed, lets say it has a sports team logo on it, if I turned them down because they were gay that is a violation of the law.
                              If that customer entered my shop and requested I print a T-shirt with a message of a image that I found offensive that would not be a violation because I am not required to join with any individual and participate in the exercise of their free speech rights.
                              To be blunt, I can't stop anyone from participating in the promotion of gay rights, However, there is no law that requires me to participate in the promotion of gay rights. To do so violates my free speech rights.
                              Have the parade, dress as outrageously as you wish, Just don't expect me to show up and cheer.
                              Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                              Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                                Isn't ignoring religious beliefs also the very type of bigotry you are seeking to condemn? Your own post makes the need for such protection clear.

                                The "Majestic Bakery" case that went to the SCOTUS presented a legitimate issue that the SCOTUS avoided addressing.
                                The gay couple in that case has rights that deserve protection, however, the baker also had rights that deserved protection.
                                The problem that the SCOTUS will eventually have to address is how to balance those interests.
                                Extremely easy to do. The gay couple has the right to shop for a wedding cake. The baker has the right to refuse service to anyone, just as businesses do here in Colorado. The signs are up everywhere.

                                WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.

                                That simple. Meanwhile, some entrepeneur can make money selling a "gay wedding cake conversion kit " - contains one extra male and female figure...adaptable to all occasions.

                                And in every large city in America, the bakery making extra money will be the one accepting gay orders..maybe a business venture for a gay baker?

                                There is no need to compel the market to work differently than it already does.


                                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X