Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Honestly? Yeah. And they were well within their rights to start a black-only restaurant as well (though the white supremacist social structure of the time would have wrongly denied them the ability to exercise that right).And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?
In full honesty I just wouldn't really have a problem wandering into, say, a black-only store and being informed that I wasn't going to be served there. That's because the business owner has the right to refuse to make a contract with me. If my business isn't wanted there, then I can take it elsewhere. If they reject enough customers then they'll go out of business. That's how capitalism works. I'm not going to throw a temper tantrum and cry about it to every activist group I can find so they can rain legal hell and shut the business down, force the owner's family into the gutter, and gloat about my victory for justice and tolerance while I piss on them all for it. I'm just not liberal like that, you know?
I would rather have someone tell me honestly that they don't like me and don't want to serve me, so that I can take my money and give it to someone else, rather than have them pretend just for my money, and quite likely do a less-than-outstanding job.
Frankly, if bigoted Neanderthals want to segregate themselves into little like-minded communities away from the rest of us, I have no problem with that. Have at. I have no desire to force them to intermingle with and pollute the rest of society.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
For that matter where will you get guests for your hypothetical wedding?Then why are you bothering to discuss it?
To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.
Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.
Ok so lets say you live in one of the countless very small towns in rural America. It's so small there's only one store, one gas station and one post office. That's it. It's so rural that it's hundreds of miles to another small town or any town.
Lets also say that you're gay. You want food to eat but the person who owns the store won't let you inside because you're gay.
Where are you going to get food?
Or you want to get married but the only catering service, bakery and florist shop are inside the grocery store that you're not allowed to enter. You have no other options beyond that one store in your very small town.
Where are you going to get food to serve your guests at the reception? Where are you going to get a cake? Where are you going to get the flowers for your wedding?
Oh, Christ, the ever-present whackjob leftist hypothetical.
Let me ask you: If you're gay, why in God's name do you live in a tiny little town hours away from anything else, populated by people who don't like you? Are you a moron? And are other people obligated to change themselves to suit you just because you're too pig-stupid to live in a more hospitable area? Frankly, you deserve any misery you get if you search out a place like that to live.
Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?
I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.
Honestly? Yeah. And they were well within their rights to start a black-only restaurant as well (though the white supremacist social structure of the time would have wrongly denied them the ability to exercise that right).
In full honesty I just wouldn't really have a problem wandering into, say, a black-only store and being informed that I wasn't going to be served there. That's because the business owner has the right to refuse to make a contract with me. If my business isn't wanted there, then I can take it elsewhere. If they reject enough customers then they'll go out of business. That's how capitalism works. I'm not going to throw a temper tantrum and cry about it to every activist group I can find so they can rain legal hell and shut the business down, force the owner's family into the gutter, and gloat about my victory for justice and tolerance while I piss on them all for it. I'm just not liberal like that, you know?
I would rather have someone tell me honestly that they don't like me and don't want to serve me, so that I can take my money and give it to someone else, rather than have them pretend just for my money, and quite likely do a less-than-outstanding job.
Frankly, if bigoted Neanderthals want to segregate themselves into little like-minded communities away from the rest of us, I have no problem with that. Have at. I have no desire to force them to intermingle with and pollute the rest of society.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
I would rather have someone tell me honestly that they don't like me and don't want to serve me, so that I can take my money and give it to someone else, rather than have them pretend just for my money, and quite likely do a less-than-outstanding job.
Frankly, if bigoted Neanderthals want to segregate themselves into little like-minded communities away from the rest of us, I have no problem with that. Have at. I have no desire to force them to intermingle with and pollute the rest of society.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
I think it sets a bad precedent when we congratulate ourselves for "tolerance" simply because we don't actively persecute. Maybe it's just because I don't consider "tolerance" to be a huge, shining virtue one way or the other, so I'm not breaking my leg trying to find a way to identify myself with it.
I would rather have someone tell me honestly that they don't like me and don't want to serve me, so that I can take my money and give it to someone else, rather than have them pretend just for my money, and quite likely do a less-than-outstanding job.
Frankly, if bigoted Neanderthals want to segregate themselves into little like-minded communities away from the rest of us, I have no problem with that. Have at. I have no desire to force them to intermingle with and pollute the rest of society.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.
Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.
Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.
Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.
Yeah, it's an insult. And, I don't really see why we should make a law against it. Now Jim Crowe, and not serving blacks was pervasive, had state legal sanctions, and it certainly was legal to hire and fire based on race. So, we have public accommodation protections for race and religion and some for women, but nobody denied service to women as they did blacks and Jews .... and Irish.But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's.
Sorry, that's just a reasonable definition of hurting someone. Certainly not anything that should prompt legal action.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
That's an interesting point. Let's say the anti-discrimination laws prevail. Should people be allowed those of boycotts? Isn't that discrimination too?
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.
Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.
Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.
Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.
If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.
The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.
Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.
Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.
Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.
If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.
The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.
You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.
Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.
Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.
Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.
If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.
The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.
You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.
How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.
Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.
Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.
Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.
If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.
The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.
Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.
Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.
Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.
If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.
The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.
You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.
How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.
Yeah, it's an insult. And, I don't really see why we should make a law against it. Now Jim Crowe, and not serving blacks was pervasive, had state legal sanctions, and it certainly was legal to hire and fire based on race. So, we have public accommodation protections for race and religion and some for women, but nobody denied service to women as they did blacks and Jews .... and Irish.But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's.
Sorry, that's just a reasonable definition of hurting someone. Certainly not anything that should prompt legal action.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
That's an interesting point. Let's say the anti-discrimination laws prevail. Should people be allowed those of boycotts? Isn't that discrimination too?
I would rather have someone tell me honestly that they don't like me and don't want to serve me, so that I can take my money and give it to someone else, rather than have them pretend just for my money, and quite likely do a less-than-outstanding job.
Frankly, if bigoted Neanderthals want to segregate themselves into little like-minded communities away from the rest of us, I have no problem with that. Have at. I have no desire to force them to intermingle with and pollute the rest of society.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.
Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.
Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.
Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.
If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.
The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.
You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.
How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.
When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.
Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.
And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.
The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.
But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.
Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?
No. There's a difference between allowing someone to exist unmolested while avoiding them and ignoring their existence as best you can, and actually tolerating them. In my eyes, "tolerating" would involve removing the avoidance, which is very much an indication of active dislike.
But that is my point. Tolerating something or somebody does not require liking or condoning or respecting that something or somebody. It only requires us to not insist they be something they are not and/or not punish them for who and what they are. Picketing, boycotting, or otherwise trying to hurt somebody because they said something we don't like or because they hold a politically incorrect point of view is about as intolerant as it gets.
The hypocrisy is that those who demand tolerance for one group refuse to give it to those they don't agree with.
We should not tolerate all things. Those who are doing serious damage to the environment or who are engaged in activities that hurt people or animals etc. should be picketed or boycotted or protested. That would be righteous intolerance.
A Christian baker who chooses not to participate in a same sex wedding hurts nobody. To picket or boycott or try to hurt him physically and/or materially is hateful intolerance of the sort we should all condemn.
When it comes to
But the non baking baker IS hurting someone. He's saying your wedding is not as worthy as another's. Further, he's using his religion hypocritically so as to act on his bigotry, because he has no idea of hetero marriages don't involve relationships that begin in adultery. However, I don't believe there's really any valid comparison to that bigotry and racial bigotry. That is no one really considers jailing homosexuals who marry, but they certainly did consider that in the South back when the Lovings fell in love.
But then again its rather a different story when a state like Indiana passes a law that specifically allows a private employer to hire and fire over orientation.
If we really wanted to be civil about it, imo we'd all push for orientation to be protected from any discrimination in employment and healthcare and retirement and childcare, but just leave the bigots alone except for any PRIVATE economic boycotts people want to levy in return..
The Christian baker is hurting nobody. He isn't protesting anybody's wedding. He isn't refusing anybody the privilege of having a wedding. He isn't interferring with the wedding in any way. He is simply exercising his own moral choice not to participate in it.
Does it hurt somebody to come in and want swaztikas on cup cakes for a birthday party, even in jest, and be refused that? No. Anymore than such person would be hurt if there was no bakery in business at all.
Does it hurt somebody when the baker refuses to inscribe "God hates gays" on a cake? I am pretty much 100% certain that the Christian baker would have refused to do that too.
Tolerance is a two way street or it is 100% hypocrtical.
If you see a valid factual comparison to saying I won't bake a gay wedding cake to saying I would bake a god hates fags cake, you need new glasses.
The baker is a bigot, and he's acting like a bigot. He's singling ONE sin to make a statement about. He may not actively be saying to himself "I'm gonna single out sodomy as sin ONE, but that is what he's doing, whether he admits it or not. But, I don't see how that is a reason to shut down his business. Boycott it? I wouldn't buy anything from him.
You are perfectly within your right to choose not to buy anything from the baker. Nobody is requiring you to. But unless you allow the baker the strength of his convictions in peace, you are a hypocrite when you demand the right to express your convictions and views without consequences of being physically or materially punished because you hold them.
How is the baker being punished? Imo, there shouldn't be any law against saying I won't serve people with more than one body piercing or tattoo. There would most likely be a negative economic consequence if I did no. I'm not a hypocrite, I'm simply biased against people who don't serve gays. There's no hypocrisy there. And, the only hypocrisy by the baker is that he's elevating sodomy to be the one sin he excludes from service. Apparently, he's cool with adultery.
That bias against people who don't serve gays makes you a bigot.
How do you know he's cool with adultery? You ASSume. Has he denied an adulterer a cake? If he hasn't, your claim of hypocrisy is a sign of your bias against good common sense and a sign of stupidity.
