First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply How long will we have the first ammendment?
8687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 3/19/15
I don't see why we have to worry about this. The United States have already become a major superpower in the world, and will continue to grow as we go on.

The problem is, the Russians and the rest of the world. I'd like to annihilate all of 'em with one single sub-atomic nuke, but hey, thats just me.

'MURICA
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 3/19/15
Huh.
8200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / The US. Why is th...
Online
Posted 3/19/15

dsjb wrote:


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.


Good evening.

That could be true. But the humanity of the customers is not in question in this case. It's the secondary support of an action. The sit-ins were different because

1. Blacks don't choose to be Black, but gays do choose to enter into relationships and marry
2. Those who oppose selling wedding cakes to gays are in the minority while major businesses and other shops leave a plethora of choices available
3. The businesses targeted by sit-ins were not tied to religious ceremony
4. The sit-ins took place at a time wherein no civil rights existed, and extreme measures were necessary to preserve the lives and livelihoods of the participants and their families. The government wasn't being used as a club to beat those who opposed integration into silence, but to give those who were for integration a chance to escape beatings.

The difference is positive versus negative freedom.

I will grant that in order to continue our conversation, we would both have to be arguing from the same definition of what makes one human. I for one, do not believe that a person's genetics dictates their willful behavior.
20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15
Freedom of religion should be allowed on a personal level, however, no religion should be propagated by the government of any country.

Civil laws and freedoms such as marriage equality and gender/race and various other freedoms should not be jeopardized and or ruled upon based on religion.

Religion when it is propagated by a government is a vile and sickening dogma that spreads like wildfire. Just because you cant tell homosexuals to go fuck themselves anymore, doesn't mean your religion is under attack.

You will always have freedom of religion, however, you will not always have the ability to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own lives.

Both Liberals and conservatives are basically fascists in today's world, if we went back to WW2 they would be the ones heading the Reich.

37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15

AzazelOfNexium wrote:

Freedom of religion should be allowed on a personal level, however, no religion should be propagated by the government of any country.

Civil laws and freedoms such as marriage equality and gender/race and various other freedoms should not be jeopardized and or ruled upon based on religion.

Religion when it is propagated by a government is a vile and sickening dogma that spreads like wildfire. Just because you cant tell homosexuals to go fuck themselves anymore, doesn't mean your religion is under attack.

You will always have freedom of religion, however, you will not always have the ability to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own lives.

Both Liberals and conservatives are basically fascists in today's world, if we went back to WW2 they would be the ones heading the Reich.




Good post. I agree that no government should be centered on a religion. Let the citizens of a nation have freedom. Freedom to be a part of a religion of their choice, or no religion if they choose. Don't take one religion and make laws and bills based on it, forcing all citizens to follow things from a religion when not every citizen is a part of that religion. Especially with a country like America, which is probably the most diverse nation in the world.
8200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / The US. Why is th...
Online
Posted 3/19/15

silversongwriter wrote:


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.



There was a case where a lesbian tried to get her kids to a catholic school. But they said no, she took them to court, but ultimately the school won.

Now think about it... Why? Why put your children at risk of being bullied for your lifestyle by putting them in an atmosphere where people disaprove of you.

I mean, thank goodness she lost. Otherwise, imagine being in a school, with people who disapprove of gays, after your gay moms took the school to court to let you in? You think bullying wouldn't have happened?


Hi!

I'm not sure what those parents were thinking, Silversongwriter. The only thing I could imagine is that they would attempt to get damages from the school, or try to have the school put out of business by bringing a lawsuit big enough to bankrupt them.

The bigger issue I have with this story is that the parents of this child used their child to make a point/receive monies rather than enroll that child into a school that supported their own values. I would be, as you are, more concerned about the psychological effect on the kid, rather than a religious institution that shockingly had its own views about what a family should be like. What a stressful experience for him/her!

There was no reason for that to need to have happened. And I'm certain that, even if bullying didn't happen on the part of the students, there would have been some trouble with the teachers, who by virtue of their belief system would eventually have to contradict the lifestyle of the parents. I certainly agree.
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/19/15

BlueOni wrote:
And in Colorado sexual orientation is a protected class. Now, back to the question: why shouldn't that little old lady exercise her option to establish her bakery as a private club if she's so interested in discriminating her customers on the basis of sexual orientation or religion? Who's keeping her from doing that other than herself? Or, to put it another way, isn't this entire "crisis of religious infringement" a total fabrication?



Why does it need to be a "club"? As long as she pays to use that land, she should have the right to do what she wants with it. It shouldn't be considered public when a private citizen is in charge of it.


BlueOni wrote:Why on Earth would you want to do that when there's a perfectly viable alternative for those who wish to discriminate their customers on the basis of religion already out there? Why should public establishments be endowed with the power to do that as well?


The problem is that they shouldn't be conisdered public. They aren't owned by the govenrment. A park is public. A school is public. A community center is public. That's public property.
There is no reason a store, owned by a private individual, should be considered public
35784 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / My Chair, OH
Offline
Posted 3/19/15
Remember it could always be worse.

Just read 1984
37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15

silversongwriter wrote:

The problem is that they shouldn't be conisdered public. They aren't owned by the govenrment. A park is public. A school is public. A community center is public. That's public property.
There is no reason a store, owned by a private individual, should be considered public



But a bakery serves the public, exchanging goods and services for money. And people who won't serve those who are gay are discriminating some people and cherry picking which types of sinners they don't want to serve (while serving any other type of sinner, whether it be adulterers, or people who had one or multiple divorces, and so forth). Also, gays and bis and trans people are protected citizens (from discrimination) in many states (apparently not in all states).
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15

Grauger wrote:

Remember it could always be worse.

Just read 1984


Wasn't that a book about the history of the NSA?
35784 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / My Chair, OH
Offline
Posted 3/19/15

silversongwriter wrote:


Grauger wrote:

Remember it could always be worse.

Just read 1984


Wasn't that a book about the history of the NSA?

.........................................................................................

No
37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 3/19/15

Grauger wrote:


silversongwriter wrote:


Grauger wrote:

Remember it could always be worse.

Just read 1984


Wasn't that a book about the history of the NSA?

.........................................................................................

No



I think he is joking about the NSA and how they monitor US citizens.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/20/15

silversongwriter wrote:

Why does it need to be a "club"? As long as she pays to use that land, she should have the right to do what she wants with it. It shouldn't be considered public when a private citizen is in charge of it.

The problem is that they shouldn't be conisdered public. They aren't owned by the govenrment. A park is public. A school is public. A community center is public. That's public property. There is no reason a store, owned by a private individual, should be considered public


Ah. I think I see the problem here. You're thinking a "public establishment" is a state one. That's not what it means at all. A public establishment is one which offers its services to the general public, like a fueling station, or a hotel, or a bakery like the one at issue. A private club, by contrast, offers its services only to members. They may set pretty much whatever standards for membership they want, however loose or tight. The Association of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians Who Really Like Eating Coffee Cake and Discussing Coffee Tables could exist, and they could make membership contingent upon being a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, serve only coffee cake, and talk about absolutely nothing but coffee tables. No problem. A public establishment, however, would not be able to deny its coffee cake and coffee table conversations on the basis of whatever has been declared a protected class (such as religion).

You cannot, and in fact should not, be able to do just whatever you want with a public establishment. We've tried that in the past. It didn't work out. Screw the wedding cake or coffee cake industries, the market didn't even resolve housing discrimination against homosexuals.
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/19/15

Dubnoman wrote:


silversongwriter wrote:

The problem is that they shouldn't be conisdered public. They aren't owned by the govenrment. A park is public. A school is public. A community center is public. That's public property.
There is no reason a store, owned by a private individual, should be considered public



But a bakery serves the public, exchanging goods and services for money. And people who won't serve those who are gay are discriminating some people and cherry picking which types of sinners they don't want to serve (while serving any other type of sinner, whether it be adulterers, or people who had one or multiple divorces, and so forth). Also, gays and bis and trans people are protected citizens (from discrimination) in many states (apparently not in all states).


Most of the time it's not that they deny service to gays completely.
As that's not possible. Because you can't read minds. If you get kicked out, it's due to either behavior (public displays of affection), or if you're doing something marriage related.

Which... when you think about it. You're discriminating against a lifestyle, not a sexual orientation. As nobody has a signal flashing above their heads telling their sexual orientation. That means you're not being discriminated for who you are, but what you do.

I love to drink. However, if a person has strong beliefs against alcohol and discriminates against people who drink, even outside the job. It's still his right to do that. (you can't do that in NC, based on current discirmination laws)

If we legalize weed, should it become illegal to drug test employee's? I don't think so, because even though I approve of weed. I'm not in favor of dictating how someone does business. Because I know plenty of business's will simply stop drug testing as it'll no longer be a big deal.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/19/15 , edited 3/19/15
...not going to lie, it's pretty difficult to confuse a request for a wedding cake reading something like "Congratulations, Jim and Edward" for anything other than a cake for a same-sex ceremony. Even if there's no message to be applied, the request for a pair of bridal figurines would kind of ring some bells that a pair of lesbians was to be wed.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.