Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dissention embrace's censorship

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Huh?

    I'm sorry. My point has been consistent. The fact that you do not grasp what I am saying doesn't mean I am back peddling.
    By the way, please tell me where I have changed my position. I can't wait.

    When you have a coherent point, I will respond. Right now it seems you are just trolling about a subject you don't understand.

    The baker has rights as does the gay couple.
    You seem to think that rights only work in one direction.
    Fortunately, both sides have rights.
    Yes both sides have rights. The Christian has the right to believe whatever he or she wishes, but that does not give him the right to act a certain way towards others. Those were your own words, do you stand by them or not?

    Secondly, speaking of talking about a subject you don't understand, this subject is not about the bakery.
    "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


    • #77
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

      Yes both sides have rights. The Christian has the right to believe whatever he or she wishes, but that does not give him the right to act a certain way towards others. Those were your own words, do you stand by them or not?

      Secondly, speaking of talking about a subject you don't understand, this subject is not about the bakery.
      Sigh.

      No. He doesn't have the right to stone people even if that is his religious belief.
      He has no right to compel others to behave in a way that his religious beliefs dictate.
      He can refuse to engage in acts demanded by others where those acts are inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

      I addressed this point early on. Refusing to do something is different from compelling someone to do something or seeking to cause harm to another. (see post #66)

      I also know it is not about the bakery.
      I have used the bakery as an example starting in post #58.
      I used that as an example because it is the same issue and the SCOTUS has dealt with the case.

      The fact that the bakery case presented the same issue made its use relevant to this discussion. You've been happy to try and counter my comments about the bakery until now.
      If the bakery wasn't relevant to the issue it is odd that you didn't seem to think so until I pointed out your arguments indicate a lack of understanding of what the 1st amendment actually protects.

      The baker didn't "act" he refused to "act". We do not have a right to compel others to do our bidding (involuntary servitude). For example, in a personal services contract, one party agrees to perform certain work for the other. They both openly accept the terms of the agreement. If the party who was to perform the work refuses, no law will force them to. The only recourse is penalties under the contract being assessed against the person refusing to do his job. Think about pro baseball or football players who "hold out".
      The teams can't force the player to come to work, they can only refuse to pay him or prevent him from working elsewhere.

      Want to tell me more about the 1st Amendment?
      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


      • #78
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

        Sigh.

        No. He doesn't have the right to stone people even if that is his religious belief.
        He has no right to compel others to behave in a way that his religious beliefs dictate.
        He can refuse to engage in acts demanded by others where those acts are inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

        I addressed this point early on. Refusing to do something is different from compelling someone to do something or seeking to cause harm to another. (see post #66)

        I also know it is not about the bakery.
        I have used the bakery as an example starting in post #58.
        I used that as an example because it is the same issue and the SCOTUS has dealt with the case.

        The fact that the bakery case presented the same issue made its use relevant to this discussion. You've been happy to try and counter my comments about the bakery until now.
        If the bakery wasn't relevant to the issue it is odd that you didn't seem to think so until I pointed out your arguments indicate a lack of understanding of what the 1st amendment actually protects.

        The baker didn't "act" he refused to "act". We do not have a right to compel others to do our bidding (involuntary servitude). For example, in a personal services contract, one party agrees to perform certain work for the other. They both openly accept the terms of the agreement. If the party who was to perform the work refuses, no law will force them to. The only recourse is penalties under the contract being assessed against the person refusing to do his job. Think about pro baseball or football players who "hold out".
        The teams can't force the player to come to work, they can only refuse to pay him or prevent him from working elsewhere.

        Want to tell me more about the 1st Amendment?
        Nicely stated.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

          Yes both sides have rights. The Christian has the right to believe whatever he or she wishes, but that does not give him the right to act a certain way towards others. Those were your own words, do you stand by them or not?

          Secondly, speaking of talking about a subject you don't understand, this subject is not about the bakery.
          Actually, the first amendment gives every individual the right to act in no certain way towards anyone, as long as the way you treat others doesn't involve murder, theft, rape, extortion, etc. Of course discrimination towards employees and coworkers is illegal/
          As a society we have been forced to be exposed to all kinds of " free speech ", it isn't always comfortable.
          An artist places a crucifix in a bottle of urine, Ah free speech, A parade of white robbed extremist with a burning cross, free speech, the Freedom Marches, free speech, "Pride Parades", free speech. Some crazy Christian sect protesting the burial of fallen US soldiers, free speech, Antifa protesting the appearance of conservative speakers on a university campus, there by stopping the speech from happening, free speech.
          A Christian business owner saying " I've had enough, I will not participate in this any longer"
          FREE SPEECH.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X