Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So an oppressed minority should not fight for it all? They should be satisfied with something short of full acceptance and full participation in society as equals? Do you deride blacks for wanting it all? Where should they have compromised? water fountains, lunch counters? The vote?... Where ?I dunno. PP, I've tried to be agreeable with you in the past around here. I actually agree with you frequently. You just want all or nothing, brother. And you can't have it like that. And you'll lose allies like that.
Thanks to the advancement of gay rights despite the best efforts of bigots like you to fight it
There are no such things as gay rights. There are no such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights. Rights do not come as groups. Rights come as individuals. In perpetuating the notion of group rights (gay rights, for example) as opposed to Individual rights, you, yourself, are openly demonstrating a mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as Individuals. How is that no less bigoted than those to whom you openly apply the label? By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality rather than viewing humans as Individuals, you, yourself, are perpetuating bigotry. Do you not realize this?
No, PP. What you're advancing is the midset that Individuals should be viewed strictly as members of groups rather than Individuals. Which, of course, is the traditional collectivist mindset. The mindset that there is no Individual. That there is only the collective.
In fact, what you've mentioned here is reflective of Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. (As a courtesy, I'll link it - http://www.historyguide.org/europe/duce.html). What Mussolini had mentioned is strikingly something along your lines What Benito had said was that ''In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.''
Now, what he's saying is that you, the Individual do not matter. That you as the Individual have no rights. And that the only thing that matters is the collective. The theoretical greater good.
But the truth, PP, is that there is no greater good. There is no collective. There is only special interest groups. Lobbyists. Politicians. People who have influence using the power of law to claim that they are protecting the collective, but the reality is that they are only enriching themselves.
Again. No such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights.
So an oppressed minority should not fight for it all? They should be satisfied with something short of full acceptance and full participation in society as equals? Do you deride blacks for wanting it all? Where should they have compromised? water fountains, lunch counters? The vote?... Where ?I dunno. PP, I've tried to be agreeable with you in the past around here. I actually agree with you frequently. You just want all or nothing, brother. And you can't have it like that. And you'll lose allies like that.
Thanks to the advancement of gay rights despite the best efforts of bigots like you to fight it
There are no such things as gay rights. There are no such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights. Rights do not come as groups. Rights come as individuals. In perpetuating the notion of group rights (gay rights, for example) as opposed to Individual rights, you, yourself, are openly demonstrating a mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as Individuals. How is that no less bigoted than those to whom you openly apply the label? By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality rather than viewing humans as Individuals, you, yourself, are perpetuating bigotry. Do you not realize this?
No, PP. What you're advancing is the midset that Individuals should be viewed strictly as members of groups rather than Individuals. Which, of course, is the traditional collectivist mindset. The mindset that there is no Individual. That there is only the collective.
In fact, what you've mentioned here is reflective of Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. (As a courtesy, I'll link it - http://www.historyguide.org/europe/duce.html). What Mussolini had mentioned is strikingly something along your lines What Benito had said was that ''In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.''
Now, what he's saying is that you, the Individual do not matter. That you as the Individual have no rights. And that the only thing that matters is the collective. The theoretical greater good.
But the truth, PP, is that there is no greater good. There is no collective. There is only special interest groups. Lobbyists. Politicians. People who have influence using the power of law to claim that they are protecting the collective, but the reality is that they are only enriching themselves.
Again. No such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights.
That is a hell of a rant, brother but it fails miserably. It fails because those groups are comprised of individuals who matter very much. It is necessary for individuals to form groups -collectives as you call them- groups with a common cause, to win rights and achieve goals. Mussolini? Seriously??!! Give me a break!
They should allow people to be themselves even if it means they are bigots. It's called freedom. We should be free to discriminate. Those who refuse to make money off of a group for whatever reason are morons. But they should be free to do so. It's the only way we can guarantee religious freedom.So an oppressed minority should not fight for it all? They should be satisfied with something short of full acceptance and full participation in society as equals? Do you deride blacks for wanting it all? Where should they have compromised? water fountains, lunch counters? The vote?... Where ?I dunno. PP, I've tried to be agreeable with you in the past around here. I actually agree with you frequently. You just want all or nothing, brother. And you can't have it like that. And you'll lose allies like that.
They should allow people to be themselves even if it means they are bigots. It's called freedom. We should be free to discriminate. Those who refuse to make money off of a group for whatever reason are morons. But they should be free to do so. It's the only way we can guarantee religious freedom.So an oppressed minority should not fight for it all? They should be satisfied with something short of full acceptance and full participation in society as equals? Do you deride blacks for wanting it all? Where should they have compromised? water fountains, lunch counters? The vote?... Where ?I dunno. PP, I've tried to be agreeable with you in the past around here. I actually agree with you frequently. You just want all or nothing, brother. And you can't have it like that. And you'll lose allies like that.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the 14th amendment, it violate the first amendment.
prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,
The 14th amendment has been shown to impede the free exercise of religion. Therefore it is a law Congress should not have made since the 1st amendment guaranteed they would not.
Legally speaking member of Trumps staff are not covered by laws against discrimination. However , I will agree that on some level there is no difference. I am not saying that kicking Sanders out was right.Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.
As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.
You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.
But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.
good points. how is refusing to serve a member of the presidents staff any different than refusing to serve gays? or how does it differ from a college that refuses to allow a conservative to give a speech?
Either we have freedom or we don't, nothing subtle or confusing about it. Its an absolute.
Dangerous and bizarre thinkingThey should allow people to be themselves even if it means they are bigots. It's called freedom. We should be free to discriminate. Those who refuse to make money off of a group for whatever reason are morons. But they should be free to do so. It's the only way we can guarantee religious freedom.So an oppressed minority should not fight for it all? They should be satisfied with something short of full acceptance and full participation in society as equals? Do you deride blacks for wanting it all? Where should they have compromised? water fountains, lunch counters? The vote?... Where ?I dunno. PP, I've tried to be agreeable with you in the past around here. I actually agree with you frequently. You just want all or nothing, brother. And you can't have it like that. And you'll lose allies like that.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the 14th amendment, it violate the first amendment.
prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,
The 14th amendment has been shown to impede the free exercise of religion. Therefore it is a law Congress should not have made since the 1st amendment guaranteed they would not.
Excuse me. The state bans on same sex marriage were a form of government discrimination The decision to overturn those bans was based on the 14th Amendment.They should allow people to be themselves even if it means they are bigots. It's called freedom. We should be free to discriminate. Those who refuse to make money off of a group for whatever reason are morons. But they should be free to do so. It's the only way we can guarantee religious freedom.So an oppressed minority should not fight for it all? They should be satisfied with something short of full acceptance and full participation in society as equals? Do you deride blacks for wanting it all? Where should they have compromised? water fountains, lunch counters? The vote?... Where ?I dunno. PP, I've tried to be agreeable with you in the past around here. I actually agree with you frequently. You just want all or nothing, brother. And you can't have it like that. And you'll lose allies like that.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the 14th amendment, it violate the first amendment.
prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,
The 14th amendment has been shown to impede the free exercise of religion. Therefore it is a law Congress should not have made since the 1st amendment guaranteed they would not.
good points, let me add. Individuals should be free to discriminate, the government should not.
Excuse me. The state bans on same sex marriage were a form of government discrimination The decision to overturn those bans was based on the 14th Amendment.
Of course you know that I'm going to say the gay couple. Perhaps it ruined their day in terms of the emotional effect as well as having been inconvenienced. It is not hard to imaging how it may have robbed them of just a little "happiness" Hell, maybe is cast a pale over the whole wedding. As for the Baker, I find it hard to believe that baking the cake would have caused him emotional harm unless he was so delusional that he believed that God would hate him or punish him for it, and if so that is his problem.Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I agree to that, but then who's life liberty and pursuit of happiness was infringed here? The gay couple? The bakery? Possibly both?
and for the record, under Trump black unemployment is the lowest in history and the welfare rolls are being reduced every day. Obama never did that, neither did either Bush or Clinton.
Well, no, God probably wouldn't punish someone for that, but, in the world of religion, they practice by not being affiliated with things that go against their beliefs. It has nothing to do with hate, or even how they feel personally, it's just that they felt the action would have compromised their faith values.
It's like this, when someone asks you to perform a specific function for them, they are commissioning you to work for them. This is what it boils down to. In the instance of the bakery, they felt that performing work specifically in the service of a gay wedding would have gone against what they felt were their religious moral values. Nothing about hate, just their own personal faith and sense of morality.
I'm sure, because of this, the bakery also experienced emotional distress as a result of the lawsuit. Thus, I say both experienced loss of happiness.
But the PA laws dont say a business has to service every customer that walks in, they say that a business can't discriminate based on certain status. I contend that the Baker wasnt discriminating, he was exercising religious liberty, which is also equally protected under the law.Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.
As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.
You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.
But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.
In Correct. Nowhere does Windsor say anything to the effect of "this type of discrimination( on the part of the states) was/is right and proper in the individual states . The decision simply recognizes the fact that at the time of it's writing, the constitutional right to same sex marriage had not been established. Yes, the basis of the decision was that since the states had the right to approve same sex marriage or not, the federal government would be undercutting the authority of states that allowed it.Correct. And in Windsor 2013, it found 56 times that this type of discrimination was/is right and proper in the individual states: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?
1. Appeal to hypocrisy logical fallacySince the USSC just now admitted that LGBT are behaviors (because if this was about innate like baker refusing race or gender the Opinion would've been fundamentally different), we have a situation where the USSC in 2015 played favorites allowing just some of their favorite repugnant behaviors, but not others to escape majority regulation (discrimination) re marriage at the state level. And they did so in utter irony, citing the 14th Amendment on "equality" (playing favorites???)
I presume you understand that once you allow one group that is so very repugnant to embrace as endemic in "pride" as part of their deviant sexual identity, performing lewd sex acts in parades where they hope kids are watching, that other repugnant groups must also be granted immunity from majority regulation? (discrimination).
Absolutely insane ! The rantings of a mad person!! Tell us, where are those polygamous marriages taking place?There are laws on the books preventing people from condoning, participating with or promoting any person or group of people that embrace and espouse openly the desire to perform sex acts in front of kids or other lewd behavior in front of kids. So the USSC has got itself into a real bind on this one and they're going to have to unravel it. Otherwise any and all other repugnant minority behavioral groups are automatically also granted immunity. This is why I said and still maintain that the millisecond the ink was dry on Obergefell, polygamy-marriage and any other conceivable type of bastardization of one man/one woman marriage was ALREADY made legal. You can't cite the 14th and then deny the 14th all in the same breath as you play favorites from the Bench. The Justices knew this. And it's what killed Scalia. Obergefell's "voodoo" nonsense literally killed Scalia.
Correct. And in Windsor 2013, it found 56 times that this type of discrimination was/is right and proper in the individual states: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?
In Correct. Nowhere does Windsor say anything to the effect of "this type of discrimination( on the part of the states) was/is right and proper in the individual states . The decision simply recognizes the fact that at the time of it's writing, the constitutional right to same sex marriage had not been established. Yes, the basis of the decision was that since the states had the right to approve same sex marriage or not, the federal government would be undercutting the authority of states that allowed it.
Nothing in Windsor means that the states have an absolute right to regulate marriage.
But the PA laws dont say a business has to service every customer that walks in, they say that a business can't discriminate based on certain status. I contend that the Baker wasnt discriminating, he was exercising religious liberty, which is also equally protected under the law.Thank you. You're right, the consumer can't be forced to use any particular vender. However, with respect to the vender's obligation when offering good and services, it appears that we are going around in a circle and I see no path to a way to break that deadlock.Nope. Not absolute. An individual has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ONLY to the extent that his actions in pursuit of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not impinge on another's right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That's true. Very good. You're the only person around here I've seen say that right.
As a consumer, however, you are free to discriminate without loss of these rights. That is to say that you have the right to freedom of association and you may shop elsewhere without risk of loss of liberty. That's the beauty of the free market.
You're still going to get married, you're still going to have a cake And you're still going to have everything else.
But if you choose not to exercise your right to freedom od f association and try to force a property owner to relinquish his property at the barrel of a government gun, you're taking away his right to freedom of association. And his property right. And a few other liberties.
