Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dissention embrace's censorship

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

  • Urban hermit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

    Yes I have agreed itt that freedom of speech should prevail. The main point remains, the store owner in the OP is in bad company he has the same mindset as various intolerant men and women of history of which strikes against the core values of Christianity, Islam and the values of The United States. If most Americans had the beliefs of the store owner in the OP, we would be in a tough spot but Im glad most Americans reject the views of the store owner you bring up in the OP.


    We don't get to decide if the baker's religious beliefs are consistent with our values or any religious value.
    Our opinions about his beliefs are never relevant.

    He gets to practice his religion. It only becomes an issue when his practice affects others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    Then Christians are allowed to hire slaves, have abortions or stone their children? Any contention against those practices, is not allowing free practice.



    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.

    Editor's note: Believe what you want, but that does not give you the right to act a certain way towards others, ie discriminate against them.



    Who says I disagree with their beliefs?



    Your original statement was accurate, now you're backpedaling.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    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.
    Yes I have agreed itt that freedom of speech should prevail. The main point remains, the store owner in the OP is in bad company he has the same mindset as various intolerant men and women of history of which strikes against the core values of Christianity, Islam and the values of The United States. If most Americans had the beliefs of the store owner in the OP, we would be in a tough spot but Im glad most Americans reject the views of the store owner you bring up in the OP.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    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.
    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.
    Throughout the thread I have stood by freedom of speech. I was showing how religiously and morally speaking that to turn down a LGBT person is the same mindset as what ISIL and the Klan exhibit toward so called non believers. Of course religious folks do differ on there beliefs, for example in the US civil war Christians would debate whether the Bible approved of slavery or not. The point I and most modern day Christians and Muslims for that matter make, is that the religions preach equal values. The store owner can sell to whomever he wants, but he puts himself in bad company by refusing to sell to LGBT folks.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Sorry, the First Amendment protects your right to the free practice of your religion.
    Then Christians are allowed to hire slaves, have abortions or stone their children? Any contention against those practices, is not allowing free practice.

    The fact that you believe religious beliefs are subordinate to the rights of gay people doesnít change that.
    As I have said, the rights of each group need to be balanced.
    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.

    Editor's note: Believe what you want, but that does not give you the right to act a certain way towards others, ie discriminate against them.

    You are ignoring the harm of forcing the baker to do something that is contrary to his religious beliefs and pretending that the only possible harm is to the people you side with. Not surprisingly, even people you disagree with have rights that are entitled to protection.
    Who says I disagree with their beliefs?

    So, my statement remains accurate.
    Your original statement was accurate, now you're backpedaling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    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.



    Their right not to be harmed outweighs any right I may have to believe in anything.

    Editor's note: Discrimination is a form of harm.




    Sorry, the First Amendment protects your right to the free practice of your religion.
    The fact that you believe religious beliefs are subordinate to the rights of gay people doesnít change that.
    As I have said, the rights of each group need to be balanced.

    In the Majestic bakery case, the baker was asked to make something. He did not discriminate against gay people and happily sold them cakes. He merely objected based on sincerely held religious beliefs to making a cake that conflicted with those beliefs. Your 1st Amendment rights do not extend to making others do things.

    You are ignoring the harm of forcing the baker to do something that is contrary to his religious beliefs and pretending that the only possible harm is to the people you side with. Not surprisingly, even people you disagree with have rights that are entitled to protection.

    So, my statement remains accurate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    I'd like to address the other point I was attempting to point out with the title of the OP is how the Free Speech Movement began, in the 1960s and how the debate has changed from a liberal movement to now becoming a conservative one.
    To do so we have to put the origin in pretext. It was a time of censorship, there were strict codes in Hollywood as to language, dress codes. It was considered outrageous when I Dream of Genie allowed the star to expose her navel . And of course we were still in the wake of the MaCarty era when Socialist and Communist were black listed from society, even the ruomor that you had associated with a member of the Communist party would doom your career.
    Inn the campus of University of California at Berkeley a group of students and a few professors who protested the draft and the war in Vietnam and censorship.
    They demanded the constitutional protection guaranteed by the 1st amendment to allow them to express their opinions without retaliation from the university administration.
    The movement soon spread across other universities, to the anti war movement. The publishers of Playboy and other " men's " magazines jumped on the bandwagon, publishers began openly printing pornography, movies like Deepthroat and Behind the Green Door which just a few years earlier woulkd have been sold under the counter in from backroom of questionable businesses appeared on the big screens of theaters on main street.
    The gay rights movement was founded in the Free Speech Movement.
    Today the elements that drove the birth of the movement have become mainstream, the resistance to "The Establishment " have become the establishment. The Dissention movement that began in the 60s and demanded that the 1st amendment protected their right to speak, to express, to print, to be as vulgar as they wanted to be encompassed pop culture, the more outrageous the better.
    But today It is the voice of conservatives and religious beliefs that are facing censorship under the false proposition that any individual or organizations that expresses an opinion in opposition to the expression of what they perceive as an anomaly or as a insult to their traditions based either in culture or religious beliefs,
    The Dissention movement of the 60s has become censorship movement .

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Religious beliefs are entitled to the same level of protection as anything else.
    As such, we cannot force someone to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs just because we disagree with those religious beliefs.
    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.

    Regardless, no one is denying that the people who tried to buy a cake have rights, only that their rights are not superior to the rights of the baker in the Majestic Baker case.
    Their right not to be harmed outweighs any right I may have to believe in anything.

    Editor's note: Discrimination is a form of harm.



    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    So there will be no practical solution because SCOTUS is fearful of being seen as anti-gay, and the rights of private citizens have largely been subverted in favor of militant minorities.

    The other solution is, of course, to simply do a less than stellar job such that there will be no repeat business. Or start selling the conversion kits and announce that store policy is to let the purchaser decided on the arrangement of the figures on the cake, since even a child can stick those things in.

    legalized bullying is NOT, however, an acceptable solution and will lead to backlash.


    I donít know if the baker in the Majestic bakery case had any viable options. He was being targeted (bullied) and the people targeting him were not going to let him get away with holding religious beliefs they disapproved of. Sadly, the State was only too happy to help in that vendetta.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    I did not equate saying something to doing something. I was referring to the specific action of stoning children. Emphasis on action.



    That's what I've been arguing this entire time. If a business owner does not like homosexuality, he is perfectly free to hold that belief. However, the first amendment does not grant him the right to discriminate against others.



    Thank you, this continues to support my argument. The victims being discriminated against, homosexuals in the OP, have rights too.



    I couldn't have said it better myself.



    OT, but I personally do not like abortion.

    Refusing to provide service to someone is not the same thing as stoning them. Refusing service is not at all comparable to active physical harm.

    Religious beliefs are entitled to the same level of protection as anything else.
    As such, we cannot force someone to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs just because we disagree with those religious beliefs.
    Actually religious beliefs are explicitly protected, homosexuality is not.

    Regardless, no one is denying that the people who tried to buy a cake have rights, only that their rights are not superior to the rights of the baker in the Majestic Baker case.
    The SCOTUS needs to figure out how to balance those interests.
    The problem isnít going away.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    I don't get how you equate saying something and doing something.
    I did not equate saying something to doing something. I was referring to the specific action of stoning children. Emphasis on action.

    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.
    That's what I've been arguing this entire time. If a business owner does not like homosexuality, he is perfectly free to hold that belief. However, the first amendment does not grant him the right to discriminate against others.

    Regardless, of what I may believe the bible tells me to do, the victims of your hypothetical stoning have rights too.
    Thank you, this continues to support my argument. The victims being discriminated against, homosexuals in the OP, have rights too.

    Their right not to be harmed outweighs any right I may have to believe in anything.
    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    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)
    OT, but I personally do not like abortion.
    Last edited by TactiKill J.; 26 Aug 19, 19:16.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X