Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[Gadawg73]

Why is a can of worms for individuals to not be ordered around by the government?

Seriously, given your repeated assertions that you support individual freedom, a small government, and your constant complaints about other people wanting to shove their beliefs down your throat, why do you insist that the government have the ability to force people to do what you want?

I only see one answer to that question, and it ain't a pretty one.

You are the one that supports mob majority rule government, not me.
I could care less about your beliefs as long as you do not want to use government to force others to ACT on them.
You believe homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and support government keeping them in their place. You support mob majority rule referendums forcing government to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?
Why did YOU insist that the government have the ability in each of those matters to force people to do what YOU want?
You single out homosexuals and put them in a certain group because your religious beliefs and/or prejudices tell you to do so.
And you do not have the balls to admit it.
Do you support referendums that ban gay marriage and use the strong arm of government to do so?
You have run from that question like a monkey on fire for how long now?

There you go again. Your only defense when someone pins you down is to accuse other people of having your viewpoint, and then attacking it.

I oppose all laws that impose a duty on private individuals to associate with anyone, even if I think they make sense. That is a principle because I don't want the government that can tell people that they have to do something simply because the majority thinks it is a good idea. Somehow, this warps inside your head to me supporting majority rule over freedom.

I oppose all government definition of marraige. The only reason the government regulates marraige is to tell people who they can associate with, and in what way. This means that I have no problem if 250 consenting adults want to gt together and call it a marraige. It is not the government's business, mine, or yours, how they conduct themselves as long as they are not forcing their views on another person.

You, on the other hand, would require them to get government approval, and then force anyone who disagreed with you to obey because it is the law.

I haven't run from anything. My position has always been consistently against the government being allowed to control people, which is why you cannot fathom it. You cannot imagine a world where the government does not tell you what to think, it scares you.

It doesn't scare me.

Everyone knows my position as I am open about it so what is there to pin me down about?
I am a Libertarian that supports 100% what my party says:
"We applaud the US Supreme Court decision to strike down the DOMA, a federal law that discriminates against non heterosexual marriages."
That is what defines my opinion and beliefs. Is that pinning it down? I am a LIBERTARIAN.
We stand for this in the Libertarian Party and it is clearly front page on our national web site: "The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971".
So which is with you? Are you a Libertarian or are you not?
"This is a landmark decision for personal freedom" Geoff Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
Do you believe the repeal of DOMA by the SCOTUS was a landmark decision for personal freedom?
Libertarians ARE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Are you for marriage equality?
For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons I am normally opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. The foundation of libertarian thinking is private property as a limit on state action. However, to stretch that into if a business chooses to discriminate at will the typical libertarian says that is a business's right to do so is not true.
Barry Goldwater in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act spoke on this, made reference in his speech on the final vote of this very subject, Milton Friedman made comparisons to the Hitler Nuremberg Laws when the Fair Employment Practices Act passed.
The fiercest opponent of public accommodation legislation was William F. Buckley, Jr.
He publicly changed his mind in 2004 and stated he was wrong and government intervention was needed. If a business is open to the public and is incorporated the rules are different than a private club.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are the one that supports mob majority rule government, not me.
I could care less about your beliefs as long as you do not want to use government to force others to ACT on them.
You believe homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and support government keeping them in their place. You support mob majority rule referendums forcing government to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?
Why did YOU insist that the government have the ability in each of those matters to force people to do what YOU want?
You single out homosexuals and put them in a certain group because your religious beliefs and/or prejudices tell you to do so.
And you do not have the balls to admit it.
Do you support referendums that ban gay marriage and use the strong arm of government to do so?
You have run from that question like a monkey on fire for how long now?

There you go again. Your only defense when someone pins you down is to accuse other people of having your viewpoint, and then attacking it.

I oppose all laws that impose a duty on private individuals to associate with anyone, even if I think they make sense. That is a principle because I don't want the government that can tell people that they have to do something simply because the majority thinks it is a good idea. Somehow, this warps inside your head to me supporting majority rule over freedom.

I oppose all government definition of marraige. The only reason the government regulates marraige is to tell people who they can associate with, and in what way. This means that I have no problem if 250 consenting adults want to gt together and call it a marraige. It is not the government's business, mine, or yours, how they conduct themselves as long as they are not forcing their views on another person.

You, on the other hand, would require them to get government approval, and then force anyone who disagreed with you to obey because it is the law.

I haven't run from anything. My position has always been consistently against the government being allowed to control people, which is why you cannot fathom it. You cannot imagine a world where the government does not tell you what to think, it scares you.

It doesn't scare me.

Everyone knows my position as I am open about it so what is there to pin me down about?
I am a Libertarian that supports 100% what my party says:
"We applaud the US Supreme Court decision to strike down the DOMA, a federal law that discriminates against non heterosexual marriages."
That is what defines my opinion and beliefs. Is that pinning it down? I am a LIBERTARIAN.
We stand for this in the Libertarian Party and it is clearly front page on our national web site: "The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971".
So which is with you? Are you a Libertarian or are you not?
"This is a landmark decision for personal freedom" Geoff Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
Do you believe the repeal of DOMA by the SCOTUS was a landmark decision for personal freedom?
Libertarians ARE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Are you for marriage equality?
For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons I am normally opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. The foundation of libertarian thinking is private property as a limit on state action. However, to stretch that into if a business chooses to discriminate at will the typical libertarian says that is a business's right to do so.
Barry Goldwater in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act spoke on this, made reference in his speech on the final vote of this very subject, Milton Friedman made comparisons to the Hitler Nuremberg Laws when the Fair Employment Practices Act passed.
The fiercest opponent of public accommodation legislation was William F. Buckley, Jr.
He publicly changed his mind in 2004 and stated he was wrong and government intervention was needed. If a business is open to the public and is incorporated the rules are different than a private club.

That reminds me I need to find something I disagree with regarding the libertarian party platform. I don't like 100% it can't be true

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not.

You do.

I'm showing the hypocrisy of saying that private business should be able to refuse gay customers because they have moral objections to homosexuals and then those same people say that it's OK for big government to require private businesses to not discriminate on other factors (race, religion, gender, age, etc.).

How is it hypocritical? Must a person not want to serve blacks if they serve gays? What if the person who wants to deny service to gays is black, should they also deny service to themselves simply because you cannot fathom that sexual preference is different than skin color?

To say "my group should be able to discriminate against he gays because that is our our conviction", but agree that the government has the power to force other people to violate their convictions when it is a different group is a hypocritical position as it is using big government to force other people to violate their convictions.

That would be a good argument, but the person you were responding to was agreeing with me, and I never said that. In fact, the specific post you responded to stated that PETA members should be able to deny services to people that eat meat based on their personal beliefs.

Doesn't that indicate that you are making up arguments for the other person, and attacking them based on what you made up? Isn't there a word for that?

The solution isn't carving out "special privileges" for people of faith to justify discrimination against gays, the solution is to return the decision to private business for any reason.

Yet you keep arguing that the laws exist, and that we have to obey them.

#1 - I don't have a problem with someone challenging my position. I deal with them in a respectful and considerate manner. Unlike you.

#2 - I don't have an issue with private business discriminating based on whatever criteria they wish to choose. As the Oregon Bakery case shows, if the public doesn't like it, they will take their business elsewhere.

Funny, I never said you did. What I said is that you don't defend the position you claim you have. You continually go out of your way to explain what the law is, and that you disagree with it, but never actually explain why.

You do not take, or defend, a position, you just post, and claim the high ground because you think being polite trumps the fact that the law is wrong, or something.

I've stated my position very clearly, sorry you don't understand it.



>>>>

I understand what you say your position is, what I don't understand is why you don't understand that not defending it is the same as ceding it to the other side. Then you actually go out and build a nice fort for them to shoot at you when you stick your head up. Stop waving the truce flag and defend the position you claim to have, or admit you don't really believe what you say you do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see.

But the fact is, such gullibility cannot be ignored. She goes looking for things that closely match her ideals, and then at the same time wants to strike this balance you speak of. To a lesser extent though, I will remain suspicious. Although I was just as wayward once.

LOL. Well it is refreshing to hear somebody be honest about their changing views over time, and admitting that we don't always get it right. That is very rare on these message boards. But I imagine a lot of us have held convictions that just didn't make it over time or in the face of better information or in the light of superior reason and logic, and we have changed our position about this or that.

But Emily and everybody else is every bit as entitled to their opinions and beliefs as is anybody else, including the Christian bakers AND the gay couple who tried to order a wedding cake from them.

Nobody has shaken my belief in the principle I hold as conviction on this though. It doesn't matter if the Christian baker is right or wrong. It doesn't matter if the gay couple is right or wrong.

What DOES matter is that each has an unalienable right to be right or wrong with impunity so long as no participation or contribution is required of anybody else. To require the bakers to acquiesce to the demands of the gay couple is not acceptable any more than it would be acceptable for the Christian bakers to demand the gay couple denounce their homosexuality.

The hatemongers and bigots of the world want to force, demand, or coerce others into adopting and professing a single point of view. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. They seek to punish and destroy those who refuse to toe the political correctness line.

And that is evil.

I agree with most of what you say,
but wouldn't call this evil. It is selfish and human
as most people are. People are hurt and express this
by hurting others back. Not trying to be evil, just seeking justice
in ways that end up hurting both sides until we learn better ways.

Thanks, this is the best explanation of your view so far and I think this should be clear!

Hurting people is not justice, even if they hurt you first.

 

[RKMBrown]

LOL. Well it is refreshing to hear somebody be honest about their changing views over time, and admitting that we don't always get it right. That is very rare on these message boards. But I imagine a lot of us have held convictions that just didn't make it over time or in the face of better information or in the light of superior reason and logic, and we have changed our position about this or that.

But Emily and everybody else is every bit as entitled to their opinions and beliefs as is anybody else, including the Christian bakers AND the gay couple who tried to order a wedding cake from them.

Nobody has shaken my belief in the principle I hold as conviction on this though. It doesn't matter if the Christian baker is right or wrong. It doesn't matter if the gay couple is right or wrong.

What DOES matter is that each has an unalienable right to be right or wrong with impunity so long as no participation or contribution is required of anybody else. To require the bakers to acquiesce to the demands of the gay couple is not acceptable any more than it would be acceptable for the Christian bakers to demand the gay couple denounce their homosexuality.

The hatemongers and bigots of the world want to force, demand, or coerce others into adopting and professing a single point of view. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. They seek to punish and destroy those who refuse to toe the political correctness line.

And that is evil.

I agree with most of what you say,
but wouldn't call this evil. It is selfish and human
as most people are. People are hurt and express this
by hurting others back. Not trying to be evil, just seeking justice
in ways that end up hurting both sides until we learn better ways.

Thanks, this is the best explanation of your view so far and I think this should be clear!

Hurting people is not justice, even if they hurt you first.

Define "hurt." Apparently picketing a picketer harms the picketer. Just ask Foxy, she's convinced.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are the one that supports mob majority rule government, not me.
I could care less about your beliefs as long as you do not want to use government to force others to ACT on them.
You believe homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and support government keeping them in their place. You support mob majority rule referendums forcing government to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?
Why did YOU insist that the government have the ability in each of those matters to force people to do what YOU want?
You single out homosexuals and put them in a certain group because your religious beliefs and/or prejudices tell you to do so.
And you do not have the balls to admit it.
Do you support referendums that ban gay marriage and use the strong arm of government to do so?
You have run from that question like a monkey on fire for how long now?

There you go again. Your only defense when someone pins you down is to accuse other people of having your viewpoint, and then attacking it.

I oppose all laws that impose a duty on private individuals to associate with anyone, even if I think they make sense. That is a principle because I don't want the government that can tell people that they have to do something simply because the majority thinks it is a good idea. Somehow, this warps inside your head to me supporting majority rule over freedom.

I oppose all government definition of marraige. The only reason the government regulates marraige is to tell people who they can associate with, and in what way. This means that I have no problem if 250 consenting adults want to gt together and call it a marraige. It is not the government's business, mine, or yours, how they conduct themselves as long as they are not forcing their views on another person.

You, on the other hand, would require them to get government approval, and then force anyone who disagreed with you to obey because it is the law.

I haven't run from anything. My position has always been consistently against the government being allowed to control people, which is why you cannot fathom it. You cannot imagine a world where the government does not tell you what to think, it scares you.

It doesn't scare me.

Everyone knows my position as I am open about it so what is there to pin me down about?
I am a Libertarian that supports 100% what my party says:
"We applaud the US Supreme Court decision to strike down the DOMA, a federal law that discriminates against non heterosexual marriages."
That is what defines my opinion and beliefs. Is that pinning it down? I am a LIBERTARIAN.
We stand for this in the Libertarian Party and it is clearly front page on our national web site: "The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971".
So which is with you? Are you a Libertarian or are you not?
"This is a landmark decision for personal freedom" Geoff Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
Do you believe the repeal of DOMA by the SCOTUS was a landmark decision for personal freedom?
Libertarians ARE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Are you for marriage equality?
For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons I am normally opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. The foundation of libertarian thinking is private property as a limit on state action. However, to stretch that into if a business chooses to discriminate at will the typical libertarian says that is a business's right to do so is not true.
Barry Goldwater in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act spoke on this, made reference in his speech on the final vote of this very subject, Milton Friedman made comparisons to the Hitler Nuremberg Laws when the Fair Employment Practices Act passed.
The fiercest opponent of public accommodation legislation was William F. Buckley, Jr.
He publicly changed his mind in 2004 and stated he was wrong and government intervention was needed. If a business is open to the public and is incorporated the rules are different than a private club.

You are 100% right, everyone knows you position. Most people don't care when you post something that totally contradicts your support of government imposing a belief system on others, but I find it offensive. I don't like wannabe tyrants that dress themselves up as freedom fighters. Anyone, including Buckley, that supports public accommodation laws supports tyranny.

Unlike you, I am not a Libertarian, I reuse to be a member of any group that exist only to define others.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There you go again. Your only defense when someone pins you down is to accuse other people of having your viewpoint, and then attacking it.

I oppose all laws that impose a duty on private individuals to associate with anyone, even if I think they make sense. That is a principle because I don't want the government that can tell people that they have to do something simply because the majority thinks it is a good idea. Somehow, this warps inside your head to me supporting majority rule over freedom.

I oppose all government definition of marraige. The only reason the government regulates marraige is to tell people who they can associate with, and in what way. This means that I have no problem if 250 consenting adults want to gt together and call it a marraige. It is not the government's business, mine, or yours, how they conduct themselves as long as they are not forcing their views on another person.

You, on the other hand, would require them to get government approval, and then force anyone who disagreed with you to obey because it is the law.

I haven't run from anything. My position has always been consistently against the government being allowed to control people, which is why you cannot fathom it. You cannot imagine a world where the government does not tell you what to think, it scares you.

It doesn't scare me.

Everyone knows my position as I am open about it so what is there to pin me down about?
I am a Libertarian that supports 100% what my party says:
"We applaud the US Supreme Court decision to strike down the DOMA, a federal law that discriminates against non heterosexual marriages."
That is what defines my opinion and beliefs. Is that pinning it down? I am a LIBERTARIAN.
We stand for this in the Libertarian Party and it is clearly front page on our national web site: "The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971".
So which is with you? Are you a Libertarian or are you not?
"This is a landmark decision for personal freedom" Geoff Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
Do you believe the repeal of DOMA by the SCOTUS was a landmark decision for personal freedom?
Libertarians ARE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Are you for marriage equality?
For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons I am normally opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. The foundation of libertarian thinking is private property as a limit on state action. However, to stretch that into if a business chooses to discriminate at will the typical libertarian says that is a business's right to do so.
Barry Goldwater in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act spoke on this, made reference in his speech on the final vote of this very subject, Milton Friedman made comparisons to the Hitler Nuremberg Laws when the Fair Employment Practices Act passed.
The fiercest opponent of public accommodation legislation was William F. Buckley, Jr.
He publicly changed his mind in 2004 and stated he was wrong and government intervention was needed. If a business is open to the public and is incorporated the rules are different than a private club.

That reminds me I need to find something I disagree with regarding the libertarian party platform. I don't like 100% it can't be true

Dare I list off the things I disagree with on both platforms? Does this site's server have enough bandwidth to post it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL. Well it is refreshing to hear somebody be honest about their changing views over time, and admitting that we don't always get it right. That is very rare on these message boards. But I imagine a lot of us have held convictions that just didn't make it over time or in the face of better information or in the light of superior reason and logic, and we have changed our position about this or that.

But Emily and everybody else is every bit as entitled to their opinions and beliefs as is anybody else, including the Christian bakers AND the gay couple who tried to order a wedding cake from them.

Nobody has shaken my belief in the principle I hold as conviction on this though. It doesn't matter if the Christian baker is right or wrong. It doesn't matter if the gay couple is right or wrong.

What DOES matter is that each has an unalienable right to be right or wrong with impunity so long as no participation or contribution is required of anybody else. To require the bakers to acquiesce to the demands of the gay couple is not acceptable any more than it would be acceptable for the Christian bakers to demand the gay couple denounce their homosexuality.

The hatemongers and bigots of the world want to force, demand, or coerce others into adopting and professing a single point of view. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. They seek to punish and destroy those who refuse to toe the political correctness line.

And that is evil.

I agree with most of what you say,
but wouldn't call this evil. It is selfish and human
as most people are. People are hurt and express this
by hurting others back. Not trying to be evil, just seeking justice
in ways that end up hurting both sides until we learn better ways.

Thanks, this is the best explanation of your view so far and I think this should be clear!

Hurting people is not justice, even if they hurt you first.

Essentially, two wrongs never make a right. But in this case, I don't think the couple was wrong to begin with. The wrong is gay rights groups scaring their vendors off and intentionally trying to harm their business, which they succeeded in doing.

 

[emilynghiem]

HI TK
A. RE:Constitutional law and religious freedom in business
I think the conflict here (as with the health care bill issues) is
spirit of the law
v.
letter of the law
By the spirit of the law, of course, I agree totally that laws should not be interpreted
so as to violate the spirit of the Constitutional laws and amendments
By the letter of the law, when conflicts occur, they need to go through the given due process to resolve

I found from experience this becomes inherently "unfair" to the violated party which has to bear the burden of proving they were violated AFTER or DURING the violation

to be PERFECTLY fair and inclusive, no such violation should happen at all.
In case of conflict it should be resolved to PREVENT violating rights of one side or the other

So I happen to AGREE with you the system is a flawed

As with the health care bill, which has lots of unconstitutional issues with it,
it is still considered passed/law "until proven otherwise"; so for those whose religious freedom it violates, these parties are disenfranchised of "inalienable rights"
until "due process" is finished of petitioning back and forth to defend these rights!

Problem is people are not AGREEING on teh SPIRIT of the laws to PREVENT
infractions in teh first place.

If you bypass the spirit, and just play with the "letter of the law" to justify X Y Z
then you risk violating rights "until proven and corrected"

So you are both right, in a sense.
By the letter of the law, you can justify this or anything.
By the spirit of teh law, NO it is NOT truly lawful to impose a bias
which abridges or imposes on the religious beliefs this way.

The solution is to CORRECT and RESOLVE the conflict so NO SUCH imposition occurs.

Had all the issues surrounding the gay marriage changes been addressed IN ADVANCE
we would NOT have these problems. So that is the fallout from passing laws
without the consent of all people affected. Playing with the letter of the law,
missing the spirit of the law, and then suffering the consequences of unresolved issues.

Same with the health care bill.
Passed without consent of all the people affected.
And then can you wonder that issues have come up regarding
conflicts with religious freedom and contraception or prochoice/prolife,
not to mention spiritual healing which hasn't been fully addressed yet....

B. On a shorter note TK
I take exception to your signature that threatens to neg "liberals" for negative posts?
As long as people take responsibility for working out their issues, what is wrong with posting whatever? People are human, and while learning how to talk fairly with opposing views, OF COURSE their message will come out negative. You have to start somewhere.

It takes PRACTICE to be able to argue or defend without emotions attached.

I would no more fault people for that, than fault babies for crying in frustration,
or teens reacting to parents, etc.

Why not WELCOME people to dialogue with you?

The only thing I can't stand is "hit and run"
posting negative things without sticking around to resolve questions that
come up and actually discussing point by point where all those emotions came from.

TK I wouldn't want you to come across as just slamming ppl down for oppositional views
when it is CLEAR to me you can just as well draw them out to express objections
SPECIFICALLY to the point any conflicts can be worked out.

So I'd more encourage that. Given what you have to offer, I'd rather you engage
not discourage people from voicing to you whatever objections or issues they may have.

Thanks and I hope it gets better.

So what is the argument you're making? "This should be the law, because it's the law"? You're talking about what the law IS, as though that settles some question about what the law SHOULD BE, which is what Foxfyre appears to be discussing.

I discuss the topic with the recognition that I have an opinion of what the law (or lack of actually) should be, but that does not preclude a discussion of reality and what the current status of the law is.


>>>>

You extol the law, but you do not extol the rights the first laws of this country gave to the people, namely the U.S. Constitution, which I can discern has no bearing on your opinion of the law.

BTW by the same freedoms under the Constitution, technically both people have equal rights to their interpretation of equal protections of the law and religious freedom; and neither side has more right to impose their interpretation on the opposing view.

However, this is not what our govt practices. Because both sides in conflicts are not protected equally, either Congress or Courts can legalize one view or the other.

I do have a problem with this as a Constitutionalist.

For religious issues such as gay marriage and the health care bill, etc.
I believe if people disagree by religious and/or political beliefs, it is not constitutional
to pass and enforce a bill that violates one person/group's beliefs or the other
by imposing this way. ALL conflicts related to religious issues should be resolved in advance so that the State/Govt is NOT imposing a bias by majority rule. If conflicts
cannot be resolved, the parties should separate funding/policy, such as per party
and leave dissenters out of it.

This trend of abusing political parties to get majority-rule to bulldoze over the
minority opposition violates the spirit of Constitutional laws on religious freedom,
equal protection of laws without dsicrimination and due process.

It's just not being enforced because ppl are competing to abuse political parties
and majority rule for their agenda. So it is justified, again, by the "letter of the law"

This is why I would insist on conflict resolution and mediation by consensus,
so all parties to the conflict work out an agreement where they both believe
the letter and the spirit of the law are both met without compromising either.

I am SICK of hearing these arguments where one person is right by the spirit
of the law, and the other by the letter. We should have agreement on both levels!

 

[Gadawg73]

There you go again. Your only defense when someone pins you down is to accuse other people of having your viewpoint, and then attacking it.

I oppose all laws that impose a duty on private individuals to associate with anyone, even if I think they make sense. That is a principle because I don't want the government that can tell people that they have to do something simply because the majority thinks it is a good idea. Somehow, this warps inside your head to me supporting majority rule over freedom.

I oppose all government definition of marraige. The only reason the government regulates marraige is to tell people who they can associate with, and in what way. This means that I have no problem if 250 consenting adults want to gt together and call it a marraige. It is not the government's business, mine, or yours, how they conduct themselves as long as they are not forcing their views on another person.

You, on the other hand, would require them to get government approval, and then force anyone who disagreed with you to obey because it is the law.

I haven't run from anything. My position has always been consistently against the government being allowed to control people, which is why you cannot fathom it. You cannot imagine a world where the government does not tell you what to think, it scares you.

It doesn't scare me.

Everyone knows my position as I am open about it so what is there to pin me down about?
I am a Libertarian that supports 100% what my party says:
"We applaud the US Supreme Court decision to strike down the DOMA, a federal law that discriminates against non heterosexual marriages."
That is what defines my opinion and beliefs. Is that pinning it down? I am a LIBERTARIAN.
We stand for this in the Libertarian Party and it is clearly front page on our national web site: "The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971".
So which is with you? Are you a Libertarian or are you not?
"This is a landmark decision for personal freedom" Geoff Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
Do you believe the repeal of DOMA by the SCOTUS was a landmark decision for personal freedom?
Libertarians ARE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Are you for marriage equality?
For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons I am normally opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. The foundation of libertarian thinking is private property as a limit on state action. However, to stretch that into if a business chooses to discriminate at will the typical libertarian says that is a business's right to do so is not true.
Barry Goldwater in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act spoke on this, made reference in his speech on the final vote of this very subject, Milton Friedman made comparisons to the Hitler Nuremberg Laws when the Fair Employment Practices Act passed.
The fiercest opponent of public accommodation legislation was William F. Buckley, Jr.
He publicly changed his mind in 2004 and stated he was wrong and government intervention was needed. If a business is open to the public and is incorporated the rules are different than a private club.

You are 1005 right, everyone knows you position. Most people don't care when you post something that totally contradicts your support of government imposing a belief system on others, but I find it offensive. I don't like wannabe tyrants that dress themselves up as freedom fighters. Anyone, including Buckley, that supports public accommodation laws supports tyranny.

Unlike you, I am not a Libertarian, I reuse to be a member of any group that exist only to define others.

LOL!
All you ever do is define others here.
Your milk is so weak you can never define yourself.
But is obvious you are a homophobe.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I repeat my question, why the fuck should the government be able to force people to do something just because you think it is right? What happens when you find the government focing you to do something you don't like and people come back and point out how you defended it when you liked it?

I categorically oppose the government being able to impose any beliefs on people, even ones I am sure are right, because it will not stop there.

Amen an amen. It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason. Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.

Sorry to burst your bubble but in all 3 scenarios you put forth the service providers would be legally protected in not serving those customers since political positions are not protected classes.

This is said over and over and over and over but the xtian bigots and haters who want their pervasive form of bible based bigotry enshrined in law don't listen because these kinds of arguments, that are immaterial to the issue at hand, are all they have.

Pathetic and sad.

Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but race and ethnicity are only "special" cases in which it's okay for the government to violate the First Amendment in YOUR diseased little "Ohmigod, I CAN'T type out the whole word!" brain. What's the problem there, Sparkles? Too many letters for your tiny brain to wrap around, or does X mark the spot where most of your IQ points disappeared to?

Truth is, The First Amendment protects ANY exercise of religious beliefs that does not actually cause harm (ie, I can't conduct any Druidic human sacrifices). Doesn't matter if other people find it stupid, obnoxious, or insulting. DEFINITELY doesn't matter if YOU approve of it or not. I don't recall that the First Amendment contains any clauses about "Unless ignorant shitheads on the Internet deem it to be bigoted".

I'm very sorry to hear that you are so pathetic and sad that a free society scares you this badly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, you post like a dude...and yes, there are men named Cecil.

How many times did you actually flunk reading in school? My name isn't Cecil, halfwit. It's CECILIE. Get some glasses, or a seeing-eye dog, or something.

I'm sorry, is that french?

Not that it matters, but it's the Dutch version of Cecilia.

And by the way, twerp, what the hell is "posting like a dude"? What the hell kind of sexist remark is THAT? What is it with you leftists that you're so damned prejudiced against EVERYONE that you are incapable of seeing people as individuals instead of groups?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is a can of worms for individuals to not be ordered around by the government?

Seriously, given your repeated assertions that you support individual freedom, a small government, and your constant complaints about other people wanting to shove their beliefs down your throat, why do you insist that the government have the ability to force people to do what you want?

I only see one answer to that question, and it ain't a pretty one.

You are the one that supports mob majority rule government, not me.
I could care less about your beliefs as long as you do not want to use government to force others to ACT on them.
You believe homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and support government keeping them in their place. You support mob majority rule referendums forcing government to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?
Why did YOU insist that the government have the ability in each of those matters to force people to do what YOU want?
You single out homosexuals and put them in a certain group because your religious beliefs and/or prejudices tell you to do so.
And you do not have the balls to admit it.
Do you support referendums that ban gay marriage and use the strong arm of government to do so?
You have run from that question like a monkey on fire for how long now?

Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?

Weird. Xtians were against all those as well and used the bible to defend their positions.

Ended? ENDED?! The government CREATED those things, you dingbat. Are we supposed to APPLAUD their fantastic moral leadership for belatedly catching up with everyone else and ending the evils they imposed on society in the first place?

And no, the CHRISTIANS were not "opposed to those". I have no idea where you got the "idea" - if it can even be called that - that "Christians" is some precise, homogenous designation that locks everyone who fits under it into one narrow set of beliefs as perceived by YOU. On the other hand, you apparently don't even know how to spell the word, so I don't really expect you to have enough brain cells to know what it means.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry to burst your bubble but in all 3 scenarios you put forth the service providers would be legally protected in not serving those customers since political positions are not protected classes.

This is said over and over and over and over but the xtian bigots and haters who want their pervasive form of bigotry enshrined in law don't listen because these kinds of arguments, that are immaterial to the issue at hand, are all they have.

Pathetic and sad.

Want to explain why someone who is a member of PETA would be able to argue that not bringing flowers to a convention of butchers is OK because cutting up meat is a political position?

Because butchers are not a protected class.

how many times must this be said before it penetrates that thick bible cranium god gave you?

How many times must THIS be said before it penetrates that vast, echoing emptiness between your ears: only bigots set up "protected classes", ie. groups of people who are "more equal" than others. Your precious, venerated "protected classes" are the number-one, glaring sign that you're a hate-filled, ignorant, intolerant, tyrannical bundle of the exact prejudice you claim to oppose.

Congratulations, dumbass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin

CECILIE
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks. Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl. His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.

Oh, yes, because you found one tiny blurb on a website, I OBVIOUSLY am the one who doesn't know the origin of my name. God forbid that you ever consider that maybe the website's info isn't complete.

No, I'm not planning to bother discussing this further with a giant, spreading cumstain who just figured out how to READ my name, and that it isn't a man's. Run the fuck along, Junior, because you're already only two seconds away from being ignored for maxing out my Bigot Meter. You don't need to be wasting your precious "Noticed as though I'm almost human" time with this bullshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin

CECILIE
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks. Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl. His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.

You, Paper, and RKM all have been systematically dismantled, and the result is this, making fun of people's names. Funny, I thought we were the bigots? How childish you are.

Oh, even better. They were systematically dismantled by a WOMAN, so what do they do? Start attacking my femininity like the true champions of tolerance that leftists always are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin

CECILIE
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks. Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl. His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.

I have no dog in the fight, but confusion seems understandable.

It does? Why? My name is Cecilie, a female name, which seems perfectly understandable, since I'm a female. It's only confusing if you're a two-brain-celled twit who thinks anyone who expresses an opinion aggressively and trounces him in a debate instead of simpering MUST be male. An intelligent human being who isn't hampered by bigotry would simply have looked at my name and avatar and figured it out in a nano-second . . . as, in fact, virtually every CONSERVATIVE on this board did a long time ago.

FYI, your website is inaccurate. Cecilie is a form of Cecilia that is used in The Netherlands as well as its neighboring countries.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They told the reporter (from the Pulitzer prize winning newspaper) they would bake a baby shower cake for a lady having her second baby with her boyfriend.

And a pagan solstice cake they would bake too.

With a pentagram design.

They's all in on that. Cafeteria christians as well as bakers.

In other words, they don't believe what YOU do, and they don't believe what you THINK they should if they're going to disagree with you. Ergo, they can't REALLY be Christians, because YOU are the final arbiter on what ALL Christians do and don't believe.

Piss off.

They can be Christians, but their application of Christianity is a bit screwed up. You can't claim you are adhering to your faith when you pick and choose what you will obey.

Sorry, Sparkles, but what do you think belief IS, if not picking and choosing what you think is right?

If there's only one true way to interpret and follow the Bible, that's going to be a mighty big frigging shock to the numerous Christian denominations that have been arguing that very point for the many centuries of their existence.

Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you could tell us WHICH reading of the Bible is actually the "real" one?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am hardly good. But, in all honesty, I think the bakers were judgmental, and that's sinful. They should have baked the cake, and delivered, and if they truly felt compelled, told the couple they couldn't agree with their marriage or sexual mores, but nonetheless wished them God's peace.

I really don't think the boycott was "right." But then not all people call themselves christians. The bakers essentially boycotted the wedding. Tit for tat, imo. Not really ok in christianity. I'd have been more comfortable, and frankly think it'd have been more effective, for the GLBT community to expose the bakers behavior, and say it was petty, judgmental, hurtful, but they pray/hope/whatever the bakers' hearts are softened.

Templer neg repping people cause they don't agree with his concept of christian ... pfft.

In all honesty, no one frigging asked you, nor is it relevant to anything now that you've burdened us with your unsolicited judgementalism.

The issue here isn't what the "true" reading of the Bible is. The issue is Constitutional rights, which includes the Constitutional right to be wrong by the utterly subjective opinions of other people who weren't consulted, anyway.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I forgive each and every one of them...but I will still kick their online ass when they post bullshit.

Yes, FEAR your awesome power to hurl third-grade insults.