I find it very disturbing

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I refuse to serve you because I find your sexuality offensive

Same thing

Yes, the sexuality which presents falsity as truth, is going to be offensive to people who recognize the distinction and the importance of recognizing such.

Ya see scamp, the failure to discern between falsity and truth is OKA: Delusion... or an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

(FYI: THAT'S BAD!)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“I see absolutely no reason that gays should not have the same rights as everybody else.”

The issue isn't whether gay Americans should have the same rights as everyone else, as in fact they do; rather, the issue is acknowledging and respecting those rights comprehensively, up to and including allowing gay Americans access to marriage law, where measures seeking to deny them that right are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

 

[PratchettFan]

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into that. But I am a student and teacher and writer of history. I can assure you that the entirety of the Constitution was written to facilitate a government that recognized, respected, and protected unalienable rights.

Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.

And I can tell you that there is no such thing. There is no right which cannot be taken from you. If it can be taken from you, it isn't inalienable. But I understand your point and won't press the issue.

Which principle in the Constitution is violated?

 

[Silhouette]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“I see absolutely no reason that gays should not have the same rights as everybody else.”

The issue isn't whether gay Americans should have the same rights as everyone else, as in fact they do; rather, the issue is acknowledging and respecting those rights comprehensively, up to and including allowing gay Americans access to marriage law, where measures seeking to deny them that right are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

What about polygamist-Americans or incest-Americans? Oh, wait, that's right...we're talking about (just some) lifestyles, not a race of people...

False premise = false conclusions.

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you consider it valid for the state to deny you the right to not sell me the bread?

States deny people the right to sell things ALL THE TIME! Welcome to the United Socialist States of the Ridiculous.

Not the question.

Yeah it was... And the very reasons that the states deny people the right to sell things, is the exact opposite of the reason that they PA Laws demand that people should be forced to promote that which is FALSE, as TRUTH!

No, it wasn't. The question was whether it is valid for the state to deny the right to not sell something to someone. If you want to ask a question, then ask it yourself. Don't modify mine.

 

[Carla_Danger]

No, but states do, as is with the recent baker and florist in question.

No. The states don't get to decide my beliefs. opinions, or convictions either. And I hope there are protections in place soon for that baker and florist because right now their unalienable rights are being seriously violated.

You can have whatever opinion you like, you just can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, so suck it up.

Nobody has said anything about discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Some of you really have trouble grasping a point made don't you.

I was specifically talking about the florist and the baker, who were recently in the news. They were both guilty of discriminating based on sexual orientation.

No. They were guilty of breaking a law. In my opinion a very wrong law. They were discriminating based on their religious and moral convictions.

And what law did they break? Never mind, you just answered..."they were discriminating." They were discriminating based on sexual orientation.

Guess what? You don't get to use your religion to discriminate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Same as......we don't serve n*ggers here

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

It's tricky. Where do you think the line is? Clearly not on premises. How about just selling the flowers which will be picked up from the store?

The florist in qustion had been selling flowers across the counter to the gay couple for years. Ditto the baker in question who had been selling baked goods to the gay couple for years. And almost certainly would have continued to do that. But flowers for a wedding generally require delivery and set up. That is a different thing. A photographer has to be there. Wedding cakes are almost always assembled on the customer's premises and the final decorations applied on the customer's premises.

Serve everybody who comes into the store so long as they meet minimum requirements for decency and conduct, yes. Every business owner should have to do that. But nobody should have to go to, be seen at, be a part of an event that they cannot morally or ethically condone.

 

[PratchettFan]

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

It's tricky. Where do you think the line is? Clearly not on premises. How about just selling the flowers which will be picked up from the store?

The florist in qustion had been selling flowers across the counter to the gay couple for years. Ditto the baker in question who had been selling baked goods to the gay couple for years. And almost certainly would have continued to do that. But flowers for a wedding generally require delivery and set up. That is a different thing. A photographer has to be there. Wedding cakes are almost always assembled on the customer's premises and the final decorations applied on the customer's premises.

Serve everybody who comes into the store so long as they meet minimum requirements for decency and conduct, yes. Every business owner should have to do that. But nobody should have to go to, be seen at, be a part of an event that they cannot morally or ethically condone.

The florist did not deliver and set up flowers for my wedding. If I understand you, you think it is ok for the state to require the florist to sell the flowers even though they know how those flowers are going to be used. They just should not be required to deliver and set them up at the site. Have I got that right?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is that what you read into that? What if the black baker had to set up the buffet at the KKK meeting? And he just morally could not bring himself to do that. Is that the same as....we don't serve n'ggers here?

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into that. But I am a student and teacher and writer of history. I can assure you that the entirety of the Constitution was written to facilitate a government that recognized, respected, and protected unalienable rights.

Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.

And I can tell you that there is no such thing. There is no right which cannot be taken from you. If it can be taken from you, it isn't inalienable. But I understand your point and won't press the issue.

Which principle in the Constitution is violated?

The right to be who and what we are, hold the religious convictions that we hold, to think what we think, to believe what we believe, to say what we want to say without interferencve from a central government authority. The right to be free of an authoritarian government who dictates to us what our rights will be. The right to look to our own interests and not be forced into subserviance to any other.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The issue isn't whether gay Americans should have the same rights as everyone else, as in fact they do...

Yes they do... and NOT ONE PERSON OF REASON SUGGESTS OTHERWISE... yet, THE PROBLEM persists.

Which tells the reasonable person that THE PROBLEM is NOT the Right of the mentally disordered, presenting with sexual abnormality.

The problem is that the Mental Disordered, presenting with sexual abnormality want to be considered LEGITIMATE... and still practice illegitimate behavior, such as demanding that others be forced by law to accept the falsity they represent, AS TRUTH.

Which isn't going to happen... which because the mentally disordered can't shut up about it, will cause a war, which will result in their being shoved BACK into the closet, until sufficient time passes, that some future generation says: I know Ed's takin' in the ass from Joe, but Ed and Joe are such great guys, with an amazing since of color coordination and interior design... Why shouldn't they be allowed to just walk in the park without getting their head's caved in?"

At which time the last 30 years starts ALL over again, so humanity can RE-LEARN why they keep the crazies out of sight.

 

[Foxfyre]

The way that particular law is written... yes it is.

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

It's tricky. Where do you think the line is? Clearly not on premises. How about just selling the flowers which will be picked up from the store?

The florist in qustion had been selling flowers across the counter to the gay couple for years. Ditto the baker in question who had been selling baked goods to the gay couple for years. And almost certainly would have continued to do that. But flowers for a wedding generally require delivery and set up. That is a different thing. A photographer has to be there. Wedding cakes are almost always assembled on the customer's premises and the final decorations applied on the customer's premises.

Serve everybody who comes into the store so long as they meet minimum requirements for decency and conduct, yes. Every business owner should have to do that. But nobody should have to go to, be seen at, be a part of an event that they cannot morally or ethically condone.

The florist did not deliver and set up flowers for my wedding. If I understand you, you think it is ok for the state to require the florist to sell the flowers even though they know how those flowers are going to be used. They just should not be required to deliver and set them up at the site. Have I got that right?

Yep. You've got that right.

 

[Foxfyre]

And it has been fun folks, but once the arguments start becoming circular and 'did too' 'did not' over and over, it becomes sort of tedious. And boring. So unless somebody has something different to bring up, I have a really good movie set aside to watch.

Ya'll all have a great evening.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

ROFLMNAO!

It is however the SINGULAR PREMISE ON WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED... and which the US Constitution was written to sustain.

 

[PratchettFan]

A black baker has to sell to a KKK'er.

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into that. But I am a student and teacher and writer of history. I can assure you that the entirety of the Constitution was written to facilitate a government that recognized, respected, and protected unalienable rights.

Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.

And I can tell you that there is no such thing. There is no right which cannot be taken from you. If it can be taken from you, it isn't inalienable. But I understand your point and won't press the issue.

Which principle in the Constitution is violated?

The right to be who and what we are, hold the religious convictions that we hold, to think what we think, to believe what we believe, to say what we want to say without interferencve from a central government authority. The right to be free of an authoritarian government who dictates to us what our rights will be. The right to look to our own interests and not be forced into subserviance to any other.

Hmmm..... I don't want to derail the thread either and I can certainly see this going in all kinds of directions. Can we be more specific? Let's deal with one principle and how you think it applies and relate it back to the Constitution itself. I'm just trying to explore this. We can take that first one or any other you like.

 

[PratchettFan]

That was a kind of unthinking answer, so let me expand upon it a tad.

I think the florists have a pretty good case to beat this. The law says they cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. But the facts are they provided flowers to these two gentlemen for 9 years - so clearly they have no problem in serving them. I don't think there is anything in the law which says they cannot discriminate against a particular event though. The fact that the event involves homosexuals really isn't germane.

So if the state says that the florists must provide for an event just because it involves homosexuals, then a florist must provide for a KKK meeting because it involves whites. The law applies to all equally or it should apply to none.

My point is that there should absolutely be no law of any kind that forces anybody to participate in ANY event that they cannot morally condone. There is a world of difference between serving standard products across the counter to a customer who comes in--yes, any business should do that within reason. But to be forced by law to participate in an event, especially on the premises, that the person has strong religious or moral convictions against? That should not stand anywhere.

Anybody who loves the Constitution and liberty would understand why nobody should be able to pass a law requring it.

It's tricky. Where do you think the line is? Clearly not on premises. How about just selling the flowers which will be picked up from the store?

The florist in qustion had been selling flowers across the counter to the gay couple for years. Ditto the baker in question who had been selling baked goods to the gay couple for years. And almost certainly would have continued to do that. But flowers for a wedding generally require delivery and set up. That is a different thing. A photographer has to be there. Wedding cakes are almost always assembled on the customer's premises and the final decorations applied on the customer's premises.

Serve everybody who comes into the store so long as they meet minimum requirements for decency and conduct, yes. Every business owner should have to do that. But nobody should have to go to, be seen at, be a part of an event that they cannot morally or ethically condone.

The florist did not deliver and set up flowers for my wedding. If I understand you, you think it is ok for the state to require the florist to sell the flowers even though they know how those flowers are going to be used. They just should not be required to deliver and set them up at the site. Have I got that right?

Yep. You've got that right.

To be honest, I don't really disagree too much with this. But let me take it a step further. If the florist does deliver and set up the flowers at the site, but is gone before the actual event begins - is that significantly different than just providing the flowers?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“I see absolutely no reason that gays should not have the same rights as everybody else.”

The issue isn't whether gay Americans should have the same rights as everyone else, as in fact they do; rather, the issue is acknowledging and respecting those rights comprehensively, up to and including allowing gay Americans access to marriage law, where measures seeking to deny them that right are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

What about polygamist-Americans or incest-Americans? Oh, wait, that's right...we're talking about (just some) lifestyles, not a race of people...

False premise = false conclusions.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

Marriage law isn't written to accommodate three or more persons, or siblings marrying – one can't be 'discriminated against' with regard to a law that doesn't exist.

Same-sex couples, however, are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, marriage law does accommodate two adult consenting partners who aren't related – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is discrimination, and in fact un-Constitutional.

 

[PratchettFan]

And it has been fun folks, but once the arguments start becoming circular and 'did too' 'did not' over and over, it becomes sort of tedious. And boring. So unless somebody has something different to bring up, I have a really good movie set aside to watch.

Ya'll all have a great evening.

It has been fun. I enjoyed talking with you. Have a great evening.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

ROFLMNAO!

It is however the SINGULAR PREMISE ON WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED... and which the US Constitution was written to sustain.

No, it isn't. Look up the word inalienable and then tell me one right you have under the Constitution which meets that definition.

 

[Foxfyre]

He doesn't if we believe in unalienable rights and defend them as the Constitution intended they be defended.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into that. But I am a student and teacher and writer of history. I can assure you that the entirety of the Constitution was written to facilitate a government that recognized, respected, and protected unalienable rights.

Any any law that would force something to participate in an event for which he/she had strong religious or moral convictions against violates every principle written into the Constitution.

And I can tell you that there is no such thing. There is no right which cannot be taken from you. If it can be taken from you, it isn't inalienable. But I understand your point and won't press the issue.

Which principle in the Constitution is violated?

The right to be who and what we are, hold the religious convictions that we hold, to think what we think, to believe what we believe, to say what we want to say without interferencve from a central government authority. The right to be free of an authoritarian government who dictates to us what our rights will be. The right to look to our own interests and not be forced into subserviance to any other.

Hmmm..... I don't want to derail the thread either and I can certainly see this going in all kinds of directions. Can we be more specific? Let's deal with one principle and how you think it applies and relate it back to the Constitution itself. I'm just trying to explore this. We can take that first one or any other you like.

Why don't you set up a separate thread for it Prachett? I would recommend the new Structured Debate Zone or the CDZ. I think it could be a really interesting topic to discuss.

 

[PratchettFan]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“I see absolutely no reason that gays should not have the same rights as everybody else.”

The issue isn't whether gay Americans should have the same rights as everyone else, as in fact they do; rather, the issue is acknowledging and respecting those rights comprehensively, up to and including allowing gay Americans access to marriage law, where measures seeking to deny them that right are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

What about polygamist-Americans or incest-Americans? Oh, wait, that's right...we're talking about (just some) lifestyles, not a race of people...

False premise = false conclusions.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

Marriage law isn't written to accommodate three or more persons, or siblings marrying – one can't be 'discriminated against' with regard to a law that doesn't exist.

Same-sex couples, however, are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, marriage law does accommodate two adult consenting partners who aren't related – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is discrimination, and in fact un-Constitutional.

IMO, it is not the place of the government to tell any competent adults what contracts they may or may not enter into.