First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply How long will we have the first ammendment?
42337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 3/19/15

rosebudpony wrote:

Both of the far sides can be dumb, as you've said, supporting freedom of speech when it's convenient for them.

People always say, "You have the right to be free in speech, but that doesn't mean you can be an asshole."
Unfortunately, in some cases it does. Unless they're breaking the Discrimination Act or any other law similar, they can be as "assholey" as they want. I wish people would just leave these types alone in their own pool of gloom and hate, unless they're being threatening in some way.



24251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15


Okay. I see. Also with it's oil reserves, national guard and nuclear weapons, Mexico (and most other nations on Earth for that matter) wouldn't pose that much of a threat to Texas. The same can be said about most U.S. states actually. Now economically? Immediate sanctions would follow any break off from the U.S. so they'd automatically be pushed into the arms of Russia and China, which would cause ruffled feathers and nasty words to fly. No one wants that.
Posted 3/19/15
MysticGon Witch is why everybody over there shut the hell up fast. Apparently it was because of Obama-care and something about taking guns away.
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15

dsjb wrote:


severticas wrote:

Umm where did one of the posts disappear? It was pretty good


It might have been mine I posted it and then decided i didn't fancy defending my position for the next x many hours because well politics chat is draining and anime chat is fun. Sorry glad you liked it though. If it began by pointing out that the american Left from a global perspective isnt very left wing then it was mine.


Ah, okay. I don't know much about this left-wing business but I did agree with everything else. I think you had touched upon business contract. I haven't fully read the OP post.

If you could write it out again, it would be great. I think the last point was significant. Above fairness, there would be bias towards whatever is current and popular.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/19/15

dsjb wrote:


severticas wrote:

Umm where did one of the posts disappear? It was pretty good


It might have been mine I posted it and then decided i didn't fancy defending my position for the next x many hours because well politics chat is draining and anime chat is fun. Sorry glad you liked it though. If it began by pointing out that the american Left from a global perspective isnt very left wing then it was mine.


Dude tell me about it the American left is mostly in the middle now I'm to the left of the American left or what is called the progressive wing of the left. Sigh give me some good old fashioned leftest we got weak somewhere along the line ideas like everyone having government fund medical insurance fell flat we will get there I will take my victories where I can but damn everyone on the right screaming Obama is a socialist and they don't even know what one is. Boot firmly on the neck of big business ready to kill it if it gets out of line. Making the rich pay their fair share sigh those were the days and will be again. Hell most republicans wouldn't know a socialist if one leaped up and hit them in the face.
24468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/19/15


What? Most of these types of people are trolls anyway, and just want to see a reaction from the good-hearted people, which they know are the majority.
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15



severticas If you could write it out again, it would be great. I think the last point was significant. Above fairness, there would be bias towards whatever is current and popular.


Well it won't be word for word but it went something like this.

Putting aside that the american left is not really very left wing from a global perspective. Generally I'm in favor of market based solutions to these problems, Obviously the government has to treat everyone equally but i'm not convinced that enforcing business to provide services isn't counter productive. The large ones have seen the way things are going and thrown their weight in with gay marriage anyways because it makes good business sense to provide services not restrict them. As to the specifics of these cases i suspect that it comes down to the fact that in one case attempting to force a bakery to produce a specific message on a cake could be seen as compelling speech. The bakery in that case did offer to produce the cake and provide the icing materials for him to write his own message. Meanwhile the other bakery refused to provide the cake because of what it would then be used for. I think that might be the legally relevant difference but I'm no expert so take it as you will.
48409 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 3/19/15
I'm rather conservative in some issues but I think refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is ridiculous. Would the bakery deny baking a cake for a divorcee or other sinners? Would they feel comfortable baking a cake for a Hindu wedding? Go big or go home.
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 3/19/15

HuastecoOtaku wrote:

I'm rather conservative in some issues but I think refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is ridiculous. Would the bakery deny baking a cake for a divorcee or other sinners? Would they feel comfortable baking a cake for a Hindu wedding? Go big or go home.


It's irrelevant for me whether or not it's ridiculous. It's their business.

Plus, if a gay person wanted a cake for any other reason, they would have got it. They were Christians and didn't wanna be a part of a ceremony that's contrary to their beliefs.

If a pagan or satanist wanted a pentagram cake, or a cake with 666 on it... should the little ol' lady who runs the bakery down the street in a little small christian town be forced to do it?

24468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/19/15
The cake matter was kind of handled ridiculously from both sides.
If I were gay or lesbian and I wanted to get married and have a beautiful cake, why would I go support some cake shop that doesn't want to serve me for something like that? Instead of going to the media and causing a big scene, it would be a lot easier and put a lot of stress off of the whole marriage ceremony if I were to go to a different cake shop happy to serve me. But I guess that would be just me.
Of course I think the cake shop didn't have to be so rude in the first place, but if they honestly felt like baking a stupid cake for a gay couple would make their god angry, then it's their small business and their beliefs. If they were working under a corporation, it would be different.
48409 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 3/19/15

silversongwriter wrote:


HuastecoOtaku wrote:

I'm rather conservative in some issues but I think refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is ridiculous. Would the bakery deny baking a cake for a divorcee or other sinners? Would they feel comfortable baking a cake for a Hindu wedding? Go big or go home.


It's irrelevant for me whether or not it's ridiculous. It's their business.

Plus, if a gay person wanted a cake for any other reason, they would have got it. They were Christians and didn't wanna be a part of a ceremony that's contrary to their beliefs.

If a pagan or satanist wanted a pentagram cake, or a cake with 666 on it... should the little ol' lady who runs the bakery down the street in a little small christian town be forced to do it?



I agree that a business should have the right to deny their services to anyone they want, but i think it is crazy to cherry pick what sins you don't agree with. The gay couple weren't forcing them to come to the wedding or anything. They just wanted a cake and I doubt Jesus would be angry at the bakers for baking it.
8186 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / The US. Why is th...
Offline
Posted 3/19/15
That was the idea. The couples who go into a business to request services from people with differing religious/social views from theirs, do so with the intent of getting said business shut down or disenfranchised. It's not like the sit-ins Blacks did. The intent there was to be acknowledged as human beings. The intent in these recent cases is to force the acceptance of an ideal, and then completely destroy those who disagree.

Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15

dsjb wrote:


Well it won't be word for word but it went something like this.

Putting aside that the american left is not really very left wing from a global perspective. Generally I'm in favor of market based solutions to these problems, Obviously the government has to treat everyone equally but i'm not convinced that enforcing business to provide services isn't counter productive. The large ones have seen the way things are going and thrown their weight in with gay marriage anyways because it makes good business sense to provide services not restrict them. As to the specifics of these cases i suspect that it comes down to the fact that in one case attempting to force a bakery to produce a specific message on a cake could be seen as compelling speech. The bakery in that case did offer to produce the cake and provide the icing materials for him to write his own message. Meanwhile the other bakery refused to provide the cake because of what it would then be used for. I think that might be the legally relevant difference but I'm no expert so take it as you will.



Thanks for that.

I'd have to read these cases to determine why the fine. I'm not seeing any connections at the moment. Need sleep lol.
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15

detsayune wrote:

That was the idea. The couples who go into a business to request services from people with differing religious/social views from theirs, do so with the intent of getting said business shut down or disenfranchised. It's not like the sit-ins Blacks did. The intent there was to be acknowledged as human beings. The intent in these recent cases is to force the acceptance of an ideal, and then completely destroy those who disagree.



One could argue the situation with the civil rights sit its were attempting to force acceptance of the ideal that "all people are human and deserve equal treatment regardless of their race". This while absolutely accepted now (asides from some very small circles) was not the case when the civil right sit ins occurred.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 3/19/15
I feel that whether you agree with the business owners or not they should have a right to run their business their way. Let the free market decide if there worth staying in business. If a business doesn't do something I like, I simply don't use my money there. The best way to enact changes is to let people vote with their wallets. On a less serious note look at Microsoft when they tried to sell the original Xbox one when they wanted to sell with DRM and you had to have it connected online for it to work. The push-back from the public was so great they had to change course. That is the way people should enact change by saying if you don't do what we want we simply will take our business else where.
If any one wants to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One#Pre-release
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.