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.
You are entitled to your opinion. Other people are entitled to theirs.
The problem is people are turning opinion into punitive laws. At that point it turns from opinion to tyranny.
Most laws are punitive. That is the nature of laws. A valid argument can be made that these laws prevent tyranny. Tyranny is often just a matter of which side of the stick you are standing. If a state decides it wants these laws and those laws are not deemed unconstitutional or fall under federal jurisdiction, then it is up to the state.
in this case the government is going after the baker, thus that is where the tyranny is considering there is no real impact on the people trying to get the cake beyond hurt feeeewwwwiiinnngs.
Nonetheless, its up to the state.
Constitutionally yes, but not if you see Free exercise of religion trumping the ability of a State to regulate commerce within its borders (or the feds regulating it between States)
The problem is people are turning opinion into punitive laws. At that point it turns from opinion to tyranny.
Most laws are punitive. That is the nature of laws. A valid argument can be made that these laws prevent tyranny. Tyranny is often just a matter of which side of the stick you are standing. If a state decides it wants these laws and those laws are not deemed unconstitutional or fall under federal jurisdiction, then it is up to the state.
in this case the government is going after the baker, thus that is where the tyranny is considering there is no real impact on the people trying to get the cake beyond hurt feeeewwwwiiinnngs.
Nonetheless, its up to the state.
Constitutionally yes, but not if you see Free exercise of religion trumping the ability of a State to regulate commerce within its borders (or the feds regulating it between States)
That would be a question for the courts. I'm torn on it myself. Let us say what was happening is Jews were not allowed to buy homes in new home developments because the developer only wanted to sell to Christians. Is that acceptable?
So the pro-life people never try to limit abortion using the government? Please.
The difference is they realize they need overwhelming public opinions to get their laws passed. PA laws have mutated over time bureaucratically and judicially from their original intent.
When you try to get abortion restrictions passed, everyone knows the deal, its right there in the open. When PA laws get amended, its cloaked in terms like "fairness" and "equality" where all it really results in one form of butt hurt being made more equal than other form of butt hurt.
No. It is not the difference. It is exactly the same thing. No difference at all. If there is any difference it is a matter of degree. The "progressives" expect someone to sell a cake against their will, the pro-lifers expect someone to carry another human being in their body against their will. That difference in degree is significant. So please don't try to argue it is only one side that is doing this, because that is pure bull dung.
Well considering both sides mostly want women to be "forced" to carry a child past viability that is a matter of degree as well, plus to abortion opponents abortion is a matter of life and death, Not a 1-2 hour increase in needing to find another freaking cake.
All you are doing is justifying doing what you don't like other people doing. There is no difference. Every issue, whether right or left, has got people trying to use the government to impose their position on everyone else. It's called a republic.
Actually I'm not. I would never deny services to a gay couple, I just don't think the government has the right to do it. I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban, but I don't see in the constitution where a State is prevented from doing it if they so choose so legislatively. I support gay marriage legislatively, just not via judicial fiat.
What I actually don't like is people using government to get their results at the expense of others over things not material to the overall well being of society, i.e. I can see forcing a hotel or a gas station to serve everyone who comes through the doors, but just can't see the benefit of forcing a baker to bake a cake.
They are asking for nothing more or less than that the law be followed. A law that requires that they be treated fairly and equally. Both of which are completely reasonable.
The litigants are seeking redress for the harm caused them by the violations of the law. Its the violations of the law that instigate the situation. If the bakers had not violated the law, there would be no redress to seek.
It begins with the religious intolerance. As you can tell by all the folks who sell cakes to gays for their weddings NOT being sued and NOT having judgments against them.
You are once again blaming the victims. Your argument should come with its own case of Pabst Blue Ribbon and a wife beater T-shirt.
It requires nothing more or less than they follow the law. Christians aren't better than the law. They aren't special. They aren't exempt. There isn't a special set of more lenient rules for Christians....and harsher set for everyone else.
Its the same rules for everyone. Which is reasonable.
THE LAW IS FUCKING RETARDED!!!!
end of story.
Treating your customers fairly and equally isn't 'retarded'. Its perfectly reasonable.
Then ask people to, don't force them over something this stupid.
Like any law, they aren't for the fair minded and law abiding. But for the handful of chuckle-heads that can meet minimum standards of reasonable behavior unless we require them to.
Again, when it comes to something this trivial, who the hell are you to decide your morals outweigh theirs? Why does this require infringing on their religious rights, besides, of course, the obvious pleasure you get from crapping on people you don't agree with.
Most laws are punitive. That is the nature of laws. A valid argument can be made that these laws prevent tyranny. Tyranny is often just a matter of which side of the stick you are standing. If a state decides it wants these laws and those laws are not deemed unconstitutional or fall under federal jurisdiction, then it is up to the state.
in this case the government is going after the baker, thus that is where the tyranny is considering there is no real impact on the people trying to get the cake beyond hurt feeeewwwwiiinnngs.
Nonetheless, its up to the state.
Constitutionally yes, but not if you see Free exercise of religion trumping the ability of a State to regulate commerce within its borders (or the feds regulating it between States)
That would be a question for the courts. I'm torn on it myself. Let us say what was happening is Jews were not allowed to buy homes in new home developments because the developer only wanted to sell to Christians. Is that acceptable?
Denying home ownership is a major economic hardship on the group you are restricting, and THAT is what PA/housing laws are designed to fight. Still, you could do it, but the entire plot of land would have to be on private property, and communally held by a Church or an organization like that, which would limit ownership to members only.
The difference is they realize they need overwhelming public opinions to get their laws passed. PA laws have mutated over time bureaucratically and judicially from their original intent.
When you try to get abortion restrictions passed, everyone knows the deal, its right there in the open. When PA laws get amended, its cloaked in terms like "fairness" and "equality" where all it really results in one form of butt hurt being made more equal than other form of butt hurt.
No. It is not the difference. It is exactly the same thing. No difference at all. If there is any difference it is a matter of degree. The "progressives" expect someone to sell a cake against their will, the pro-lifers expect someone to carry another human being in their body against their will. That difference in degree is significant. So please don't try to argue it is only one side that is doing this, because that is pure bull dung.
Well considering both sides mostly want women to be "forced" to carry a child past viability that is a matter of degree as well, plus to abortion opponents abortion is a matter of life and death, Not a 1-2 hour increase in needing to find another freaking cake.
All you are doing is justifying doing what you don't like other people doing. There is no difference. Every issue, whether right or left, has got people trying to use the government to impose their position on everyone else. It's called a republic.
Actually I'm not. I would never deny services to a gay couple, I just don't think the government has the right to do it. I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban, but I don't see in the constitution where a State is prevented from doing it if they so choose so legislatively. I support gay marriage legislatively, just not via judicial fiat.
What I actually don't like is people using government to get their results at the expense of others over things not material to the overall well being of society, i.e. I can see forcing a hotel or a gas station to serve everyone who comes through the doors, but just can't see the benefit of forcing a baker to bake a cake.
No, you were saying that only progressives were using the law to force their views on others. That is clearly not the case.
I also don't think such laws should apply to non-essential services. But how do you limit it? How do you prevent discrimination for essential services while allowing it for non-essential? Who gets to define those? That is the problem. So, it is up to the state. Sometimes we have to live with laws we don't like.
THE LAW IS FUCKING RETARDED!!!!
end of story.
Treating your customers fairly and equally isn't 'retarded'. Its perfectly reasonable.
Then ask people to, don't force them over something this stupid.
Like any law, they aren't for the fair minded and law abiding. But for the handful of chuckle-heads that can meet minimum standards of reasonable behavior unless we require them to.
Again, when it comes to something this trivial, who the hell are you to decide your morals outweigh theirs? Why does this require infringing on their religious rights, besides, of course, the obvious pleasure you get from crapping on people you don't agree with.
Its already expanding. With businesses refusing to offer any good or service to gays. Not merely 'bakeries'. But automechanics. Housing. Even medical care. If deeply held belief invalidates law.....what good or service couldn't be denied gays. And what law couldn't be ignored?
No. It is not the difference. It is exactly the same thing. No difference at all. If there is any difference it is a matter of degree. The "progressives" expect someone to sell a cake against their will, the pro-lifers expect someone to carry another human being in their body against their will. That difference in degree is significant. So please don't try to argue it is only one side that is doing this, because that is pure bull dung.
Well considering both sides mostly want women to be "forced" to carry a child past viability that is a matter of degree as well, plus to abortion opponents abortion is a matter of life and death, Not a 1-2 hour increase in needing to find another freaking cake.
All you are doing is justifying doing what you don't like other people doing. There is no difference. Every issue, whether right or left, has got people trying to use the government to impose their position on everyone else. It's called a republic.
Actually I'm not. I would never deny services to a gay couple, I just don't think the government has the right to do it. I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban, but I don't see in the constitution where a State is prevented from doing it if they so choose so legislatively. I support gay marriage legislatively, just not via judicial fiat.
What I actually don't like is people using government to get their results at the expense of others over things not material to the overall well being of society, i.e. I can see forcing a hotel or a gas station to serve everyone who comes through the doors, but just can't see the benefit of forcing a baker to bake a cake.
No, you were saying that only progressives were using the law to force their views on others. That is clearly not the case.
I also don't think such laws should apply to non-essential services. But how do you limit it? How do you prevent discrimination for essential services while allowing it for non-essential? Who gets to define those? That is the problem. So, it is up to the state. Sometimes we have to live with laws we don't like.
Sorry, I probably meant to say the courts. You don't see libertarians suing people as often, you see them suing the government.
And I'm sorry, but if it was a $150 fine i would say OK, its a bad law but whatever. But those two people are facing a fine of $150,000 which is basically designed to ruin them.
No. It is not the difference. It is exactly the same thing. No difference at all. If there is any difference it is a matter of degree. The "progressives" expect someone to sell a cake against their will, the pro-lifers expect someone to carry another human being in their body against their will. That difference in degree is significant. So please don't try to argue it is only one side that is doing this, because that is pure bull dung.
Well considering both sides mostly want women to be "forced" to carry a child past viability that is a matter of degree as well, plus to abortion opponents abortion is a matter of life and death, Not a 1-2 hour increase in needing to find another freaking cake.
All you are doing is justifying doing what you don't like other people doing. There is no difference. Every issue, whether right or left, has got people trying to use the government to impose their position on everyone else. It's called a republic.
Actually I'm not. I would never deny services to a gay couple, I just don't think the government has the right to do it. I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban, but I don't see in the constitution where a State is prevented from doing it if they so choose so legislatively. I support gay marriage legislatively, just not via judicial fiat.
What I actually don't like is people using government to get their results at the expense of others over things not material to the overall well being of society, i.e. I can see forcing a hotel or a gas station to serve everyone who comes through the doors, but just can't see the benefit of forcing a baker to bake a cake.
No, you were saying that only progressives were using the law to force their views on others. That is clearly not the case.
I also don't think such laws should apply to non-essential services. But how do you limit it? How do you prevent discrimination for essential services while allowing it for non-essential? Who gets to define those? That is the problem. So, it is up to the state. Sometimes we have to live with laws we don't like.
Sorry, I probably meant to say the courts. You don't see libertarians suing people as often, you see them suing the government.
And I'm sorry, but if it was a $150 fine i would say OK, its a bad law but whatever. But those two people are facing a fine of $150,000 which is basically designed to ruin them.
Treating your customers fairly and equally isn't 'retarded'. Its perfectly reasonable.
Then ask people to, don't force them over something this stupid.
Like any law, they aren't for the fair minded and law abiding. But for the handful of chuckle-heads that can meet minimum standards of reasonable behavior unless we require them to.
Again, when it comes to something this trivial, who the hell are you to decide your morals outweigh theirs? Why does this require infringing on their religious rights, besides, of course, the obvious pleasure you get from crapping on people you don't agree with.
Its already expanding. With businesses refusing to offer any good or service to gays. Not merely 'bakeries'. But automechanics. Housing. Even medical care. If deeply held belief invalidates law.....what good or service couldn't be denied gays. And what law couldn't be ignored?
You determine essential and non-essential services, i.e. ACTUAL public accommodations. A motel or a grocery store couldn't deny service, (i.e. shelter and sustenance) but a dog groomer or a haberdasher could.
(I just wanted to use haberdasher)
in this case the government is going after the baker, thus that is where the tyranny is considering there is no real impact on the people trying to get the cake beyond hurt feeeewwwwiiinnngs.
Nonetheless, its up to the state.
Constitutionally yes, but not if you see Free exercise of religion trumping the ability of a State to regulate commerce within its borders (or the feds regulating it between States)
That would be a question for the courts. I'm torn on it myself. Let us say what was happening is Jews were not allowed to buy homes in new home developments because the developer only wanted to sell to Christians. Is that acceptable?
Denying home ownership is a major economic hardship on the group you are restricting, and THAT is what PA/housing laws are designed to fight. Still, you could do it, but the entire plot of land would have to be on private property, and communally held by a Church or an organization like that, which would limit ownership to members only.
So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?
Well considering both sides mostly want women to be "forced" to carry a child past viability that is a matter of degree as well, plus to abortion opponents abortion is a matter of life and death, Not a 1-2 hour increase in needing to find another freaking cake.
All you are doing is justifying doing what you don't like other people doing. There is no difference. Every issue, whether right or left, has got people trying to use the government to impose their position on everyone else. It's called a republic.
Actually I'm not. I would never deny services to a gay couple, I just don't think the government has the right to do it. I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban, but I don't see in the constitution where a State is prevented from doing it if they so choose so legislatively. I support gay marriage legislatively, just not via judicial fiat.
What I actually don't like is people using government to get their results at the expense of others over things not material to the overall well being of society, i.e. I can see forcing a hotel or a gas station to serve everyone who comes through the doors, but just can't see the benefit of forcing a baker to bake a cake.
No, you were saying that only progressives were using the law to force their views on others. That is clearly not the case.
I also don't think such laws should apply to non-essential services. But how do you limit it? How do you prevent discrimination for essential services while allowing it for non-essential? Who gets to define those? That is the problem. So, it is up to the state. Sometimes we have to live with laws we don't like.
Sorry, I probably meant to say the courts. You don't see libertarians suing people as often, you see them suing the government.
And I'm sorry, but if it was a $150 fine i would say OK, its a bad law but whatever. But those two people are facing a fine of $150,000 which is basically designed to ruin them.
I agree that the fine seemed excessive. $150,000 is a lot of money. There is no way the harm that the couple suffered equaled that much. And the punishment should be commiserate with the crime.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
Having the right to do something and it being right to do it are two different things.
Yes. The first is a matter of law and the second a matter of opinion.
My opinion on the matter is we are creating to many laws.
A law should be something 99.99% of the people agree to, like murder and rape being bad, not something to force people to kowtow to your moral structure.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
it's not about a right to a wedding cake. it's a right not to be discriminated against when you run a public accommodation.... same as you can't put a sign in your window saying 'no blacks, no jews'.
i'm not quite certain why that is so difficult a concept?
the pretense of some extreme religious belief is not justification for discrimination.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
Having the right to do something and it being right to do it are two different things.
Yes. The first is a matter of law and the second a matter of opinion.
My opinion on the matter is we are creating to many laws.
A law should be something 99.99% of the people agree to, like murder and rape being bad, not something to force people to kowtow to your moral structure.
well maybe if bigots stopped treating others as second class citizens in violation of the equal protection clause, there wouldn't be a need for more laws.
Nonetheless, its up to the state.
Constitutionally yes, but not if you see Free exercise of religion trumping the ability of a State to regulate commerce within its borders (or the feds regulating it between States)
That would be a question for the courts. I'm torn on it myself. Let us say what was happening is Jews were not allowed to buy homes in new home developments because the developer only wanted to sell to Christians. Is that acceptable?
Denying home ownership is a major economic hardship on the group you are restricting, and THAT is what PA/housing laws are designed to fight. Still, you could do it, but the entire plot of land would have to be on private property, and communally held by a Church or an organization like that, which would limit ownership to members only.
So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?
A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
no. they want to have the same rights as everyone else.
as we've tried to explain to you, your personal biases, or anyone's personal biases, shouldn't interfere with other people having the same rights as everyone else.
and tolerance is never a bad thing.
Again, what right is there to a wedding cake from a baker of your choice?
How does a baker not wanting to bake a cake somehow impact rights, where where rights are really things GOVERNMENT cannot take away from you?
Forced tolerance is a bad thing when the method of forcing it is to ruin people.
It derives from the state law which, as you have pointed out, has the right to create such laws.
what are you talking about?
