For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[martybegan]

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.

Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws

If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.

This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

You're offering us your personal opinion on a matter of law. And then ignoring the law.

You may consider the law irrelevant to a legal discussion. But no rational person ever would.

Try again.

You are appealing to the law as the law, regardless if the law is just. It's a simple argument for a simple person.

 

[ChrisL]

No I don't, but the state does have a right to say how you conduct business and when you are violating another person's rights. My moral code? Live and let live.

Only if there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of the people running the business.

And you are not going anywhere near live and let live. You are telling people to either submit to your moral code, or have government ruin them. You are not asking, or debating, or trying to convince, you cheer on as the government uses its power like a gun down their throat, and a finger on the trigger.

Look, the more you speak, the more you show your ignorance of the law.

Considering I think the laws are wrong, I am not ignoring them.

The laws are not wrong. You are wrong. These laws have already been challenged by bigots like you. It has been determined that a person's civil rights outweigh your religious superstitions. Understand?

You are wrong, and a bigot against people's religious beliefs. Your calling them "superstitions" proves that. Evidently you find it OK to insult people of faith.

Whatever. At least I wouldn't refuse to serve a person because of it.

 

[Skylar]

It has been determined in the State of Oregon, that your religious views and superstitions are not a good enough reason to discriminate against entire groups of people. If you do this, you will be sued by the state for not following the law. If you think you cannot follow the law, then you don't have to open a "public accommodation" business. Simple.

This is because, the "public" includes gays, blacks, and other people you might not like.

And yet Creationism and those who would present it are excluded from Public education.

Nonsense. Creation myths are part of comparative religion classes or philosophy classes all the time. I used to teach a course on Japanese Culture and Civilization in which Izanagi and Izanami created Japan from the drops of water that fell from a holy spear.

Its really quite fascinating.

Though Izanagi comes up less often in a science class.

 

[ChrisL]

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.

Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws

If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.

This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

You're offering us your personal opinion on a matter of law. And then ignoring the law.

You may consider the law irrelevant to a legal discussion. But no rational person ever would.

Try again.

You are appealing to the law as the law, regardless if the law is just. It's a simple argument for a simple person.

Nope, the law has been challenged in the past as being "unconstitutional" when it came to black people, and also this most current case. The law stands. You lose.

 

[martybegan]

I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.

I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder if you think that the bigots haven't already thought of and tried your approach? Lol. Sorry, but your religious freedom ends when you violate another person's civil rights or when you discriminate against a group of people. That is just the way it is here in our secular society, and that is the way it should be. Your religious beliefs don't give you a right to skirt the law. It is NOT your religious right to treat other people like shit.

Civil rights involve interacting with government, not with some baker.

And it is not government's right to treat others like shit for THEIR religious beliefs.

No they do not. Civil rights apply to business practice as well. Again, you show how ignorant you are. Pathetic. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on someone as ignorant as you.

So a wedding cake is a civil right?

Shopping at the store of your choice is. Again, you confuse the product with the right to access. You are dumb. Dumb de dumb-dumb. Dumb, de-dumb dumb, DUMB!

I don't see that right anywhere in the constitution, but I do see the right to free exercise of religion, and there is no caveat for "unless you want to sell something".

See the 9th amendment for rights retains by the people that aren't enumerated. And who says that State PA laws violate the free exercise of religion?

You...citing your opinion? You're begging the question.

 

[martybegan]

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.

Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws

If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.

This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

Why don't you stop with the name calling? LOL, you are all over her for one logical fallacy while committing numerous ones yourself.

She's calling me a hater, I call her a fascist. it balances out.

And please point out my logical fallacies.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

No, that YOU disagree doesn't make it so. This has already been tried in court and failed. You lose.

 

[ChrisL]

Civil rights involve interacting with government, not with some baker.

And it is not government's right to treat others like shit for THEIR religious beliefs.

No they do not. Civil rights apply to business practice as well. Again, you show how ignorant you are. Pathetic. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on someone as ignorant as you.

So a wedding cake is a civil right?

Shopping at the store of your choice is. Again, you confuse the product with the right to access. You are dumb. Dumb de dumb-dumb. Dumb, de-dumb dumb, DUMB!

I don't see that right anywhere in the constitution, but I do see the right to free exercise of religion, and there is no caveat for "unless you want to sell something".

See the 9th amendment for rights retains by the people that aren't enumerated. And who says that State PA laws violate the free exercise of religion?

You...citing your opinion? You're begging the question.

He doesn't understand freedom of religion. He also doesn't understand laws or how states can set up rules and regulations for businesses to follow. He also doesn't understand civil rights or anti-discrimination laws. I think he has made that quite clear throughout this thread.

 

[martybegan]

Civil rights involve interacting with government, not with some baker.

And it is not government's right to treat others like shit for THEIR religious beliefs.

No they do not. Civil rights apply to business practice as well. Again, you show how ignorant you are. Pathetic. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on someone as ignorant as you.

So a wedding cake is a civil right?

Shopping at the store of your choice is. Again, you confuse the product with the right to access. You are dumb. Dumb de dumb-dumb. Dumb, de-dumb dumb, DUMB!

I don't see that right anywhere in the constitution, but I do see the right to free exercise of religion, and there is no caveat for "unless you want to sell something".

See the 9th amendment for rights retains by the people that aren't enumerated. And who says that State PA laws violate the free exercise of religion?

You...citing your opinion? You're begging the question.

But those rights don't automatically trump the enumerated ones, unless there is a compelling government interest.

means assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where someone includes the conclusion they are attempting to prove in the initial premise of their argument—often in an indirect way that conceals it.

How is anything i posted begging the question?

 

[Skylar]

I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

You assume the 'original purpose' of PA laws and base your argument upon that assumption. But you've presented nothing to back that claim, merely assuming its correct.

That's the begging the question fallacy.

Provide evidence to back your assertion rather than merely assuming its true. All without citing any law or making reference to any court ruling. Else you violate your bizarro interpretation of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

Which apparently includes any mention of the law in a legal discussion.

 

[ChrisL]

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.

Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws

If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.

This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

Why don't you stop with the name calling? LOL, you are all over her for one logical fallacy while committing numerous ones yourself.

She's calling me a hater, I call her a fascist. it balances out.

And please point out my logical fallacies.

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

 

[martybegan]

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

No, that YOU disagree doesn't make it so. This has already been tried in court and failed. You lose.

another appeal to authority.

 

[Skylar]

No they do not. Civil rights apply to business practice as well. Again, you show how ignorant you are. Pathetic. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on someone as ignorant as you.

So a wedding cake is a civil right?

Shopping at the store of your choice is. Again, you confuse the product with the right to access. You are dumb. Dumb de dumb-dumb. Dumb, de-dumb dumb, DUMB!

I don't see that right anywhere in the constitution, but I do see the right to free exercise of religion, and there is no caveat for "unless you want to sell something".

See the 9th amendment for rights retains by the people that aren't enumerated. And who says that State PA laws violate the free exercise of religion?

You...citing your opinion? You're begging the question.

But those rights don't automatically trump the enumerated ones, unless there is a compelling government interest.

You have yet to establish that the any 1st amendment rights have been violated. You merely assume it is so.

Begging the question.

means assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning.

And you assume the violation of 1st amendment freedoms as the basis of your claims that the PA laws violate the 1st amendment.

Yours is an argument without corners. You merely assuming the violation is begging the question.

 

[Skylar]

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

No, that YOU disagree doesn't make it so. This has already been tried in court and failed. You lose.

another appeal to authority.

Begging the question. As your assertions remains pristinely backed by nothing but your opinions. You assume you're right because you assume you're right.

But what relevance does your Begging the Question fallacy have with us?

 

[martybegan]

The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

You assume the 'original purpose' of PA laws and base your argument upon that assumption. But you've presented nothing to back that claim, merely assuming its correct.

That's the begging the question fallacy.

Provide evidence to back your assertion rather than merely assuming its true. All without citing any law or making reference to any court ruling. Else you violate your bizarro interpretation of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

Which apparently includes any mention of the law in a legal discussion.

The original federal PA law was written to only include places of assembly, and point of service retail. I linked it in the past. The original discrimination was systemic and government mandated, and thus the federal law was written to eliminate that. They didn't concern themselves with small non point of sale or open area transactions. That came later.

And by assuming a burden of proof on my that you don't seem to provide in your responses to my points, you are just deflecting.

Your accusation of begging the question is bunk, and a typical progressive tactic of doing anything rather than actually responding.

 

[martybegan]

So a wedding cake is a civil right?

Shopping at the store of your choice is. Again, you confuse the product with the right to access. You are dumb. Dumb de dumb-dumb. Dumb, de-dumb dumb, DUMB!

I don't see that right anywhere in the constitution, but I do see the right to free exercise of religion, and there is no caveat for "unless you want to sell something".

See the 9th amendment for rights retains by the people that aren't enumerated. And who says that State PA laws violate the free exercise of religion?

You...citing your opinion? You're begging the question.

But those rights don't automatically trump the enumerated ones, unless there is a compelling government interest.

You have yet to establish that the any 1st amendment rights have been violated. You merely assume it is so.

Begging the question.

means assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning.

And you assume the violation of 1st amendment freedoms as the basis of your claims that the PA laws violate the 1st amendment.

Yours is an argument without corners. You merely assuming the violation is begging the question.

They are not being allowed to freely exercise their religion. You would have a better time saying that the state has an interest in doing so than denying that there is no violation.

They are being forced to do something against their moral code, their moral code is against their religion, so therefore they are being denied free exercise.

 

[ChrisL]

It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.

Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Begging the question fallacy. You're merely asserting your claim, assuming it to be correct. You've backed it with nothing. As your op-ed merely uses the exact same fallacy. And remember, you're not allowed to cite any law or any court ruling for any reason.

Else you violate your own conception of the 'appeal to authority fallacy'. Which you've bizarrely interpreted as any reference to law in a legal discussion.

Try again.

Not even close to a begging the question fallacy. I have stated my position on the original purpose of these laws clearly, that you disagree doesn't make any of them so.

You assume the 'original purpose' of PA laws and base your argument upon that assumption. But you've presented nothing to back that claim, merely assuming its correct.

That's the begging the question fallacy.

Provide evidence to back your assertion rather than merely assuming its true. All without citing any law or making reference to any court ruling. Else you violate your bizarro interpretation of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

Which apparently includes any mention of the law in a legal discussion.

The original federal PA law was written to only include places of assembly, and point of service retail. I linked it in the past. The original discrimination was systemic and government mandated, and thus the federal law was written to eliminate that. They didn't concern themselves with small non point of sale or open area transactions. That came later.

And by assuming a burden of proof on my that you don't seem to provide in your responses to my points, you are just deflecting.

Your accusation of begging the question is bunk, and a typical progressive tactic of doing anything rather than actually responding.

This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.

 

[martybegan]

Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).

And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.

Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.

Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

Why don't you stop with the name calling? LOL, you are all over her for one logical fallacy while committing numerous ones yourself.

She's calling me a hater, I call her a fascist. it balances out.

And please point out my logical fallacies.

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

 

[ChrisL]

Shopping at the store of your choice is. Again, you confuse the product with the right to access. You are dumb. Dumb de dumb-dumb. Dumb, de-dumb dumb, DUMB!

I don't see that right anywhere in the constitution, but I do see the right to free exercise of religion, and there is no caveat for "unless you want to sell something".

See the 9th amendment for rights retains by the people that aren't enumerated. And who says that State PA laws violate the free exercise of religion?

You...citing your opinion? You're begging the question.

But those rights don't automatically trump the enumerated ones, unless there is a compelling government interest.

You have yet to establish that the any 1st amendment rights have been violated. You merely assume it is so.

Begging the question.

means assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning.

And you assume the violation of 1st amendment freedoms as the basis of your claims that the PA laws violate the 1st amendment.

Yours is an argument without corners. You merely assuming the violation is begging the question.

They are not being allowed to freely exercise their religion. You would have a better time saying that the state has an interest in doing so than denying that there is no violation.

They are being forced to do something against their moral code, their moral code is against their religion, so therefore they are being denied free exercise.

Yes they are. The state has not prohibited you in any way from practicing your religion. They don't recognize your discrimination as "practicing your religion."