For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[martybegan]

Because in this case equal access requires trampling on the rights of someone else, and in the case of a non-necessary service that is easily gotten somewhere else, more harm is done by government forcing someone to do something they do not want to, than the harm done by the couple having to find another vendor.

What is the harm done?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

being forced to provide a service they don't want to, or face government sanction.

Those are the LAWS in the state. Don't like them? Don't open a business. When you open a business in this particular state (and most other states as far as I'm aware), you are required to put your personal feelings aside and treat everyone as an equal. This is NOT so much to ask. Nobody is being "persecuted" as this law applies to everyone, not just Christians, you dope.

All you have is 'the law is the law is the law". That is appeal to authority, and not a proper tool of debate.

You are making some "animals more equal than others" and you are ironically doing it in the name of equality.

The horror. If you open a business, you are expected to behave like an adult and treat all your customers the same. If you cannot do that and if you cannot abide by the law, then don't open a business. You are not being "forced" to do anything except to treat others like equal human beings. If that is too much for you to handle, then you probably should never own a business anyway. I'm glad for this law. It's a good law and I stand behind it 100%.

They are being forced to forgo a way of making a living they want to, they are able to, and have a right to do, simply because you don't want to participate in something against your moral code.

That you think everyone should be just like you to own a business is narcissistic and typical of progressives, the fact you want government to do your dirty work makes you a statist.

You are far closer to a fascist in political views that I ever will be. Congratulations.

 

[ChrisL]

What is the harm done?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

being forced to provide a service they don't want to, or face government sanction.

You're making a choice when CHOOSING to go into that line of businesses. Go find another job or line of work.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It's easier for the other side to find another baker, and less actual harm is done.

Sorry, in today's day and age, we don't tolerate your bigotry. You WILL be sued. I'm sure that the state is not going to see you as a poor little victim.

You proved my point that you are after thought control and nothing else

Oh geez, my feelings are so hurt now. NOT! You can keep going on, making excuses for discrimination and bigotry and trying to justify it by saying it is "unfair" that you should open a business and have to abide by the rules and treat people as people. That must be rough.

 

[ChrisL]

What is the harm done?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

being forced to provide a service they don't want to, or face government sanction.

Those are the LAWS in the state. Don't like them? Don't open a business. When you open a business in this particular state (and most other states as far as I'm aware), you are required to put your personal feelings aside and treat everyone as an equal. This is NOT so much to ask. Nobody is being "persecuted" as this law applies to everyone, not just Christians, you dope.

All you have is 'the law is the law is the law". That is appeal to authority, and not a proper tool of debate.

You are making some "animals more equal than others" and you are ironically doing it in the name of equality.

The horror. If you open a business, you are expected to behave like an adult and treat all your customers the same. If you cannot do that and if you cannot abide by the law, then don't open a business. You are not being "forced" to do anything except to treat others like equal human beings. If that is too much for you to handle, then you probably should never own a business anyway. I'm glad for this law. It's a good law and I stand behind it 100%.

You are being forced to forgo a way of making a living you want to, you are able to, and have a right to do, simply because you don't want to participate in something against your moral code.

That you think everyone should be just like you to own a business is narcissistic and typical of progressives, the fact you want government to do your dirty work makes you a statist.

You are far closer to a fascist in political views that I ever will be. Congratulations.

I know. Boo-hoo. I am oppressing your right to be a douchebag. How sad for you.

 

[martybegan]

being forced to provide a service they don't want to, or face government sanction.

Those are the LAWS in the state. Don't like them? Don't open a business. When you open a business in this particular state (and most other states as far as I'm aware), you are required to put your personal feelings aside and treat everyone as an equal. This is NOT so much to ask. Nobody is being "persecuted" as this law applies to everyone, not just Christians, you dope.

All you have is 'the law is the law is the law". That is appeal to authority, and not a proper tool of debate.

You are making some "animals more equal than others" and you are ironically doing it in the name of equality.

The horror. If you open a business, you are expected to behave like an adult and treat all your customers the same. If you cannot do that and if you cannot abide by the law, then don't open a business. You are not being "forced" to do anything except to treat others like equal human beings. If that is too much for you to handle, then you probably should never own a business anyway. I'm glad for this law. It's a good law and I stand behind it 100%.

You are being forced to forgo a way of making a living you want to, you are able to, and have a right to do, simply because you don't want to participate in something against your moral code.

That you think everyone should be just like you to own a business is narcissistic and typical of progressives, the fact you want government to do your dirty work makes you a statist.

You are far closer to a fascist in political views that I ever will be. Congratulations.

I know. Boo-hoo. I am oppressing your right to be a douchebag. How sad for you.

The sad thing is you think that all of this is the best thing to do. Again, closer to Fascism that I ever will be.

 

[Soupnazi630]

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

No. But a black person who thinks a white person is bad just because they are white is certainly a bigot, and a gay person who think someone is bad because they are straight is certainly a bigot. You make broad judgments on people you don't know and apply the label "Christian" as if it were an insult. Which makes you a bigot. Look up the definition of the word. It's about how you react, not what you react to.

Bullshit. You who want segregated businesses are the bigots. That is quite clear. You can continue trying to character assassinate me by calling ME a bigot, but it is laughable.

You want's some nails for for that cross you want to hang yourself on?

Hey, buddy! Nobody is forcing you to do anything but treat people the same. That is how we do things today. We are not going back to your 1950s utopia of discrimination and bigotry against those who are different and might have different beliefs than you. If you can't handle it, don't go into business.

Individuals have the right to preference which means NOT treating others the same.
The laws you defend are discriminatory making them contradictory. Your anti discrimination laws oppress minorities

 

[Soupnazi630]

being forced to provide a service they don't want to, or face government sanction.

You're making a choice when CHOOSING to go into that line of businesses. Go find another job or line of work.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It's easier for the other side to find another baker, and less actual harm is done.

Sorry, in today's day and age, we don't tolerate your bigotry. You WILL be sued. I'm sure that the state is not going to see you as a poor little victim.

You proved my point that you are after thought control and nothing else

Oh geez, my feelings are so hurt now. NOT! You can keep going on, making excuses for discrimination and bigotry and trying to justify it by saying it is "unfair" that you should open a business and have to abide by the rules and treat people as people. That must be rough.

Treating people as people means as individuals and some better than others.

 

[ChrisL]

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

No. But a black person who thinks a white person is bad just because they are white is certainly a bigot, and a gay person who think someone is bad because they are straight is certainly a bigot. You make broad judgments on people you don't know and apply the label "Christian" as if it were an insult. Which makes you a bigot. Look up the definition of the word. It's about how you react, not what you react to.

Bullshit. You who want segregated businesses are the bigots. That is quite clear. You can continue trying to character assassinate me by calling ME a bigot, but it is laughable.

You want's some nails for for that cross you want to hang yourself on?

Hey, buddy! Nobody is forcing you to do anything but treat people the same. That is how we do things today. We are not going back to your 1950s utopia of discrimination and bigotry against those who are different and might have different beliefs than you. If you can't handle it, don't go into business.

Individuals have the right to preference which means NOT treating others the same.
The laws you defend are discriminatory making them contradictory. Your anti discrimination laws oppress minorities

Nope, the states have every right to make rules and regulations about how businesses operate in their jurisdiction. The rest of your post is just asinine.

 

[ChrisL]

You're making a choice when CHOOSING to go into that line of businesses. Go find another job or line of work.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It's easier for the other side to find another baker, and less actual harm is done.

Sorry, in today's day and age, we don't tolerate your bigotry. You WILL be sued. I'm sure that the state is not going to see you as a poor little victim.

You proved my point that you are after thought control and nothing else

Oh geez, my feelings are so hurt now. NOT! You can keep going on, making excuses for discrimination and bigotry and trying to justify it by saying it is "unfair" that you should open a business and have to abide by the rules and treat people as people. That must be rough.

Treating people as people means as individuals and some better than others.

NOT when you open a business in the State of Oregon. Then YOU are breaking the law. In your own personal dealings, you are still allowed to be an arse.

 

[ChrisL]

Those are the LAWS in the state. Don't like them? Don't open a business. When you open a business in this particular state (and most other states as far as I'm aware), you are required to put your personal feelings aside and treat everyone as an equal. This is NOT so much to ask. Nobody is being "persecuted" as this law applies to everyone, not just Christians, you dope.

All you have is 'the law is the law is the law". That is appeal to authority, and not a proper tool of debate.

You are making some "animals more equal than others" and you are ironically doing it in the name of equality.

The horror. If you open a business, you are expected to behave like an adult and treat all your customers the same. If you cannot do that and if you cannot abide by the law, then don't open a business. You are not being "forced" to do anything except to treat others like equal human beings. If that is too much for you to handle, then you probably should never own a business anyway. I'm glad for this law. It's a good law and I stand behind it 100%.

You are being forced to forgo a way of making a living you want to, you are able to, and have a right to do, simply because you don't want to participate in something against your moral code.

That you think everyone should be just like you to own a business is narcissistic and typical of progressives, the fact you want government to do your dirty work makes you a statist.

You are far closer to a fascist in political views that I ever will be. Congratulations.

I know. Boo-hoo. I am oppressing your right to be a douchebag. How sad for you.

The sad thing is you think that all of this is the best thing to do. Again, closer to Fascism that I ever will be.

Yup, most states have laws regarding how businesses are run in their jurisdictions. So sad that you cannot openly discriminate against other people who are different. We all know that YOU are the real victim. Just keep on trying to drive that point home!

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's easier for the other side to find another baker, and less actual harm is done.

Sorry, in today's day and age, we don't tolerate your bigotry. You WILL be sued. I'm sure that the state is not going to see you as a poor little victim.

You proved my point that you are after thought control and nothing else

Oh geez, my feelings are so hurt now. NOT! You can keep going on, making excuses for discrimination and bigotry and trying to justify it by saying it is "unfair" that you should open a business and have to abide by the rules and treat people as people. That must be rough.

Treating people as people means as individuals and some better than others.

NOT when you open a business in the State of Oregon. Then YOU are breaking the law. In your own personal dealings, you are still allowed to be an arse.

This simply makes oregon a state of hypocrites who use force to discriminate against minorities in an effort to stop discrimination against minorities

 

[PratchettFan]

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, in today's day and age, we don't tolerate your bigotry. You WILL be sued. I'm sure that the state is not going to see you as a poor little victim.

You proved my point that you are after thought control and nothing else

Oh geez, my feelings are so hurt now. NOT! You can keep going on, making excuses for discrimination and bigotry and trying to justify it by saying it is "unfair" that you should open a business and have to abide by the rules and treat people as people. That must be rough.

Treating people as people means as individuals and some better than others.

NOT when you open a business in the State of Oregon. Then YOU are breaking the law. In your own personal dealings, you are still allowed to be an arse.

This simply makes oregon a state of hypocrites who use force to discriminate against minorities in an effort to stop discrimination against minorities

Good geebus, you must be delusional. Seriously.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You proved my point that you are after thought control and nothing else

Oh geez, my feelings are so hurt now. NOT! You can keep going on, making excuses for discrimination and bigotry and trying to justify it by saying it is "unfair" that you should open a business and have to abide by the rules and treat people as people. That must be rough.

Treating people as people means as individuals and some better than others.

NOT when you open a business in the State of Oregon. Then YOU are breaking the law. In your own personal dealings, you are still allowed to be an arse.

This simply makes oregon a state of hypocrites who use force to discriminate against minorities in an effort to stop discrimination against minorities

Good geebus, you must be delusional. Seriously.

No quite correct in fact which explains your constant hyperbole.

I am right and you hate it

 

[ChrisL]

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

IOW, you expect racists and bigots to be HONEST. Lol. Hilarious.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh geez, my feelings are so hurt now. NOT! You can keep going on, making excuses for discrimination and bigotry and trying to justify it by saying it is "unfair" that you should open a business and have to abide by the rules and treat people as people. That must be rough.

Treating people as people means as individuals and some better than others.

NOT when you open a business in the State of Oregon. Then YOU are breaking the law. In your own personal dealings, you are still allowed to be an arse.

This simply makes oregon a state of hypocrites who use force to discriminate against minorities in an effort to stop discrimination against minorities

Good geebus, you must be delusional. Seriously.

No quite correct in fact which explains your constant hyperbole.

I am right and you hate it

It's not hyperbole. It is the LAW. So that makes you WRONG. Unless of course you can convince the state that you are the victim in this situation. Good luck to you!

 

[ChrisL]

So, the argument is basically this. The state has no right to set rules and regulations upon businesses. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want without state interference, including discriminate against certain (and WHOLE) sectors of our society, and that should be no biggie. We should have segregated shopping and stores. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

 

[PratchettFan]

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

There is a reason why our laws are not setup to allow for discrimination. It doesn't work. It would promote and perpetuate bigotry and discrimination. You are leaving it up to individuals in society to approve or disapprove of any given discrimination. Most people are thinking of themselves and/or their family, so what doesn't affect them wouldn't move them. The government had to step in to rectify the bigotry and discrimination multiple times throughout our history. Leaving it to society wasn't cutting it. So no, that's not a good idea at all.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I understand the reason and I certainly agree it wasn't working in the past. But perhaps we need to recognize this isn't the past and take advantage of that fact. In the 60's it was essentially illegal to be homosexual in every state of the union. The very idea that anyone would even consider the notion of same sex marriage was beyond absurd. Yet, not that many years later, SSM was becoming an inevitable fact and had already been voted in by multiple states. The recent SCOTUS decision simply sped up the process, but that it was going to happen was clear to all but the most obtuse.

People are still people and we will always have the stupid with us. But what our society sees as acceptable isn't the same as it was. And there is far greater power in the opinions of one's peers than there will ever be in the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

So, the argument is basically this. The state has no right to set rules and regulations upon businesses. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want without state interference, including discriminate against certain (and WHOLE) sectors of our society, and that should be no biggie. We should have segregated shopping and stores. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

No, that's just the argument you want to argue against. Let me know when you want to argue against what is actually being presented.

 

[ChrisL]

So, the argument is basically this. The state has no right to set rules and regulations upon businesses. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want without state interference, including discriminate against certain (and WHOLE) sectors of our society, and that should be no biggie. We should have segregated shopping and stores. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

No, that's just the argument you want to argue against. Let me know when you want to argue against what is actually being presented.

Well, isn't that YOUR argument? Okay, then what IS your argument because that is what it sounds like to me!

 

[MarcATL]

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

There is a reason why our laws are not setup to allow for discrimination. It doesn't work. It would promote and perpetuate bigotry and discrimination. You are leaving it up to individuals in society to approve or disapprove of any given discrimination. Most people are thinking of themselves and/or their family, so what doesn't affect them wouldn't move them. The government had to step in to rectify the bigotry and discrimination multiple times throughout our history. Leaving it to society wasn't cutting it. So no, that's not a good idea at all.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I understand the reason and I certainly agree it wasn't working in the past. But perhaps we need to recognize this isn't the past and take advantage of that fact. In the 60's it was essentially illegal to be homosexual in every state of the union. The very idea that anyone would even consider the notion of same sex marriage was beyond absurd. Yet, not that many years later, SSM was becoming an inevitable fact and had already been voted in by multiple states. The recent SCOTUS decision simply sped up the process, but that it was going to happen was clear to all but the most obtuse.

People are still people and we will always have the stupid with us. But what our society sees as acceptable isn't the same as it was. And there is far greater power in the opinions of one's peers than there will ever be in the law.

We are a nation of laws, not individuals.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk