Equality and Tolerance: A Purely Objective View

[kaz]

Nope. You did not. The answer is either the USC or the Bible. Thanks anyway.

Liberals are such simpletons. That's what cracks me up when you call anyone else black and white.

Yes. I asked a simple question with an either/or answer. That makes me a simpleton. I have no ability to grasp nuance. I care little for grey areas. It is clear from this thread.

You, on the other hand, are all in with the OP in his quest to stop people from being intolerant of his intolerance. You are so complex. I can't stand it.

How about telling me what takes precedent? The United States Constitution or the Bible? Humor my simple mind.

Deion Sanders was a professional baseball and football player at the same time. When he was playing baseball, the baseball rules were "supreme." When he was playing football, the football rules were.

As for a gay in a store, from a Constitutional perspective, there is no basis either that the gay needs to shop at that store or that the store owner needs to sell him M&Ms. The Federal government has no legitimate basis to get involved at all.

From a Christian perspective, I think the Christian store owner should be decent to him and serve him just as a decent human being. Frankly if the gay knows the owner doesn't approve of him, in my view the Christian wasn't very Christian. However, if the gay does know, he should be a decent human being and leave and go somewhere else. And take his money with him.

Either way, government has no involvement. People need to just pull the stick out. And if you don't like someone, go somewhere else. You dont' have to tolerate intolerance by staying there, but you don't deal with it by fighting it out with them either.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals are such simpletons. That's what cracks me up when you call anyone else black and white.

Yes. I asked a simple question with an either/or answer. That makes me a simpleton. I have no ability to grasp nuance. I care little for grey areas. It is clear from this thread.

You, on the other hand, are all in with the OP in his quest to stop people from being intolerant of his intolerance. You are so complex. I can't stand it.

How about telling me what takes precedent? The United States Constitution or the Bible? Humor my simple mind.

Deion Sanders was a professional baseball and football player at the same time. When he was playing baseball, the baseball rules were "supreme." When he was playing football, the football rules were.

As for a gay in a store, from a Constitutional perspective, there is no basis either that the gay needs to shop at that store or that the store owner needs to sell him M&Ms. The Federal government has no legitimate basis to get involved at all.

From a Christian perspective, I think the Christian store owner should be decent to him and serve him just as a decent human being. Frankly if the gay knows the owner doesn't approve of him, in my view the Christian wasn't very Christian. However, if the gay does know, he should be a decent human being and leave and go somewhere else. And take his money with him.

Either way, government has no involvement. People need to just pull the stick out. And if you don't like someone, go somewhere else. You dont' have to tolerate intolerance by staying there, but you don't deal with it by fighting it out with them either.

The Sanders analogy is weak. You must know this.

The government makes the business possible. The fact that you don't get this fact leaves thinking people with little to say to you. The business does not exist without the infrastructure that WE provide. We have determined that said business may not discriminate based on certain criteria. It is what it is.

You know and I know that if a gay couple has a choice between two EQUALLY capable bakers......and one is not a weird religious bigot....they will patronize that establishment. But.....if they decide to patronize the bigot.....they MUST BE SERVED.

Now...the baker could have a valid reason to refuse service. The couple could have incredible BO.....or they might be incredibly annoying. But the fact that they are gay CANNOT be the reason for refusing service.

The government is most certainly involved.

 

[kaz]

The government makes the business possible

LOL, the parasite makes the host possible. Now that's hilarious.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The government makes the business possible

LOL, the parasite makes the host possible. Now that's hilarious.

Oh no. YOU ain't simple!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes it is. Allowing businesses to discriminate against Jews is an endorsement of anti-Semitism;

it's a choice. It's a choice of whether or not you want acts of anti-Semitism to be civil rights in your country.

It would be no different than if you supported Americans publishing child pornography, as an exercise of freedom of the press,

even if you yourself wanted nothing personally to do with child pornography.

WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK! Is this sinking through that thick skull yet? Agreeing someone has a right to be a dickhead is not the same as approving of that person being a dickhead! Is that clear enough...dickhead?

So someone can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time?

Are you intoxicated?

Your rationale is nonsensical. By claiming that someone has the right to do something you are stating your belief that whatever that action or behaviour is, you find it acceptable. You are willling to allow it in your society.

You stated a willingness to allow anti-semitism in American society. You should tell us why you find that acceptable.

God and goddess, this is like dealing with a mental patient! Once more, for the slow kid: Just because I support someone's right to do something in no way indicates that I support that action! Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Jarlaxle]

The kicker is that based on how these conservatives want things to be, the Musliim could fire someone for eating pork.

And they should have that right.

This is a serious question. Is there ANYTHING an American could desire to do in the name of their religion that you would NOT protect as a constitutional right?

Where is the line? Where do you believe the special privilege of religion ends?

Religion is-entirely-irrelevant to my views on this topic.

 

[hazlnut]

Why do these same businesses serve people who eat shellfish, have tattoos, wear clothing of mix-threads?


Why is it just the one "abomination" that gets them so excited?