Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

Our society is made up of countless sub societies, each adhering to their own specific rules. This one might smoke. That one might hate the idea of even growing tobacco. They are all free to behave as they like within their own circle, but must conform to wider rules if interacting with someone outside their specific circle. It's the price paid to be part of the larger group. Fortunately, we have laws and a system of government to sort out the continuing conflicts between opposing groups. The majority has decided that you must abide by those laws if you are to remain a member of the larger society, even if you disagree with them.

But what justification do you have for say Philadelphia who chooses unrestricted abortion laws demanding that Muleshoe TX also have unrestricted abortion laws. And filing suit against Muleshoe if the people there vote to restrict abortion? Why cannot Muleshoe allow Philadelphia people to be who and what they are and organize their society as they choose and expect to live their own lives and organize their own society as they choose?

Why should an organized mob go after the advertisers and livelihood of a Phil Robertson who, in a setting totally unrelated to his occupations, truthfully answered direct questions put to him in an interview and expressed his religious views in opposition to homosexuality. Was he right? Most of us don't think so. But should he be entitled to his views in peace even as he tolerates and allows others their own different point of view?

This is the concept I think we have lost in America today--the true spirit of live and let live i.e. You do your thing and live your life and, so long as you don't impose that on me or interfere with my life, we'll all get along just fine.

Again, the only way you can truly "live and let live" is to live alone with no outside interaction. Muleshoe freely agreed to be governed by the same federal laws everybody else agreed to. Our society has determined that some laws apply equally for everybody. As I said before, it's the price of enjoying the advantages of our society. Philadelphia didn't make that decision. They didn't have the authority to do that. We all made that decision. If you disagree with it, there is a wonderful way of changing it. We set up courts to take care of all those things.

People who don't care for Roberts opinions hardly meet the definition of a mob, and they are certainly free to express their opinions to anybody they like, just like he is. That is a perfect example of how free speech works. He is free to continue believing anything he wants, but he will have to realize that others have that same right. It's up to him if he wants that kind of pissing match.

Again, the only way you will find total freedom to do what ever you want is to live alone with no outside contact. God gave us the ability to live together without all this conflict. Too bad so many of his followers aren't willing to use that ability.

On what basis of the Constitution does or should give the federal government authority to dictate to the people of Muleshoe TX what values and moral principles must guide their common lives together?

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

 

[BULLDOG]

To assemble a cake is not the same as participating in an event. It is simply doing your job which is open to the public. When a baker assembles a cake at a Jewish wedding, that does not mean he's now Jewish.

I don't believe racists and bigots are a protected class.

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

That question has been asked and answered several times in several ways. If you just intend to keep asking until you get an answer you like, I have no further time to spend here.

 

[sakinago]

On what basis of the Constitution does or should give the federal government authority to dictate to the people of Muleshoe TX what values and moral principles must guide their common lives together?

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

By denying the right to an abortion they are imposing their values and morals.

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Ah so SCOTUS is supreme, and therefore unquestionable. Which is odd because when they struck down DOMA 2 years ago, SCOTUS said that it is a states right issue and states should have the power to choose. But a couple of months ago they disagreed with their previous ruling saying states shall have no say in the matter, and gay marriage is the law of the land. If it sounds inconsistent its because it is inconsistent. How can you trust an inconsistent body to ok laws (recently they have been in the business of rewriting laws so they can be passed, for which they have no business of doing, e.g. Recent ACA ruling).

The real trick that we all seemed to miss is that we let government define yet again what is marriage, which is a religious institution. I thought we had the freedom of religion and that government shall make no law? So if my religion or beliefs allow me to marry the same sex, or multiple partners, I should be allowed to do so, should I not?

 

[Foxfyre]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

As I recall the Founding Fathers set up free public libraries and schools on the understanding that in order for We the People to be able to govern ourselves we need an informed and educated electorate.

Ignorance is not "liberty", it is a form of subservience that the Church used for hundreds of years in order to maintain it's control over the people.

The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to that same thing happening in the nation that they founded for our benefit.

There is nothing in the least bit "tolerant" about allowing ignorance to be imposed on our children.

The founding fathers did absolutely nothing, zilch, zero, nada regarding what education the states and communities were required to provide for the children. They saw absolutely no constitutional role for the federal government in that regard. Promoting good education and dictating it are two entirely different things.

Again it comes down to a matter of liberty and tolerating the choices different people make for themselves and their own. We either assume those in the central government to be so godlike they know what is best for everybody. Or we assume that those who are living their lives know best how to live them.

 

[Foxfyre]

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

That question has been asked and answered several times in several ways. If you just intend to keep asking until you get an answer you like, I have no further time to spend here.

So far not a single one of you has answered that question with the exception of Sakinago. A lot of you have moved goal posts or answered a different question. But I challenge you to answer my question exactly as it is asked.

 

[Carla_Danger]

But what justification do you have for say Philadelphia who chooses unrestricted abortion laws demanding that Muleshoe TX also have unrestricted abortion laws. And filing suit against Muleshoe if the people there vote to restrict abortion? Why cannot Muleshoe allow Philadelphia people to be who and what they are and organize their society as they choose and expect to live their own lives and organize their own society as they choose?

Why should an organized mob go after the advertisers and livelihood of a Phil Robertson who, in a setting totally unrelated to his occupations, truthfully answered direct questions put to him in an interview and expressed his religious views in opposition to homosexuality. Was he right? Most of us don't think so. But should he be entitled to his views in peace even as he tolerates and allows others their own different point of view?

This is the concept I think we have lost in America today--the true spirit of live and let live i.e. You do your thing and live your life and, so long as you don't impose that on me or interfere with my life, we'll all get along just fine.

Again, the only way you can truly "live and let live" is to live alone with no outside interaction. Muleshoe freely agreed to be governed by the same federal laws everybody else agreed to. Our society has determined that some laws apply equally for everybody. As I said before, it's the price of enjoying the advantages of our society. Philadelphia didn't make that decision. They didn't have the authority to do that. We all made that decision. If you disagree with it, there is a wonderful way of changing it. We set up courts to take care of all those things.

People who don't care for Roberts opinions hardly meet the definition of a mob, and they are certainly free to express their opinions to anybody they like, just like he is. That is a perfect example of how free speech works. He is free to continue believing anything he wants, but he will have to realize that others have that same right. It's up to him if he wants that kind of pissing match.

Again, the only way you will find total freedom to do what ever you want is to live alone with no outside contact. God gave us the ability to live together without all this conflict. Too bad so many of his followers aren't willing to use that ability.

On what basis of the Constitution does or should give the federal government authority to dictate to the people of Muleshoe TX what values and moral principles must guide their common lives together?

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

By denying the right to an abortion they are imposing their values and morals.

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Ah so SCOTUS is supreme, and therefore unquestionable. Which is odd because when they struck down DOMA 2 years ago, SCOTUS said that it is a states right issue and states should have the power to choose. But a couple of months ago they disagreed with their previous ruling saying states shall have no say in the matter, and gay marriage is the law of the land. If it sounds inconsistent its because it is inconsistent. How can you trust an inconsistent body to ok laws (recently they have been in the business of rewriting laws so they can be passed, for which they have no business of doing, e.g. Recent ACA ruling).

The real trick that we all seemed to miss is that we let government define yet again what is marriage, which is a religious institution. I thought we had the freedom of religion and that government shall make no law? So if my religion or beliefs allow me to marry the same sex, or multiple partners, I should be allowed to do so, should I not?

There was nothing inconsistent in what the SCOTUS did with DOMA.

Their initial ruling was valid and everything was fine until one of the Circuit courts made an inconsistent ruling with the DOMA ruling. At that point the SCOTUS had an obligation to step back in and clarify their ruling, which they did, and it was entirely consistent with their initial ruling on DOMA.

Furthermore marriage in not a religious institution. Marriage is a state contract. Holy Matrimony is a religious institution that incorporates the state marriage contract.

There is no "freedom of religion" when it comes to state marriage contracts since people of all religions and none at all are allowed to get married.

 

[sakinago]

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

By denying the right to an abortion they are imposing their values and morals.

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Nor does what the Supreme Court rules matter or any other court. Or any other existing law. Existing law is not to be used as argument for purposes of the discussion in this thread. Either make an argument for why abortion must be allowed and pro life values must not be enforced or whatever your position is or let it go please. And your argument must be a rationale and not what the law itself mandates. And ad hominem and/or personal insults are expressly forbidden per the thread rules for this thread.

Ok then, I will say this. The constitution states that you have the right to life, so why did we let Schiavo starve to death. (I promise I will tie this into pro-life, just bear with me)

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, the only way you can truly "live and let live" is to live alone with no outside interaction. Muleshoe freely agreed to be governed by the same federal laws everybody else agreed to. Our society has determined that some laws apply equally for everybody. As I said before, it's the price of enjoying the advantages of our society. Philadelphia didn't make that decision. They didn't have the authority to do that. We all made that decision. If you disagree with it, there is a wonderful way of changing it. We set up courts to take care of all those things.

People who don't care for Roberts opinions hardly meet the definition of a mob, and they are certainly free to express their opinions to anybody they like, just like he is. That is a perfect example of how free speech works. He is free to continue believing anything he wants, but he will have to realize that others have that same right. It's up to him if he wants that kind of pissing match.

Again, the only way you will find total freedom to do what ever you want is to live alone with no outside contact. God gave us the ability to live together without all this conflict. Too bad so many of his followers aren't willing to use that ability.

On what basis of the Constitution does or should give the federal government authority to dictate to the people of Muleshoe TX what values and moral principles must guide their common lives together?

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

They aren't? I'm seeing a lot of arguments here that are saying exactly that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

To assemble a cake is not the same as participating in an event. It is simply doing your job which is open to the public. When a baker assembles a cake at a Jewish wedding, that does not mean he's now Jewish.

I don't believe racists and bigots are a protected class.

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

Yes it is discrimination if you are willing to bake wedding cakes for straight couples, but not willing to bake them for gay couples. No, it is not discrimination to have laws protecting people from being discriminated against.

 

[Foxfyre]

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

By denying the right to an abortion they are imposing their values and morals.

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Nor does what the Supreme Court rules matter or any other court. Or any other existing law. Existing law is not to be used as argument for purposes of the discussion in this thread. Either make an argument for why abortion must be allowed and pro life values must not be enforced or whatever your position is or let it go please. And your argument must be a rationale and not what the law itself mandates. And ad hominem and/or personal insults are expressly forbidden per the thread rules for this thread.

Ok then, I will say this. The constitution states that you have the right to life, so why did we let Schiavo starve to death. (I promise I will tie this into pro-life, just bear with me)

Just remember friend, the topic is not right to life or Schiavo or pro life. It is tolerance for opposing points of view in a world that would restrict some people's liberties in the interest of political correctness. Be sure to tie or relate your comments to that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

On what basis of the Constitution does or should give the federal government authority to dictate to the people of Muleshoe TX what values and moral principles must guide their common lives together?

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

They aren't? I'm seeing a lot of arguments here that are saying exactly that.

You have every right to be a racist and a bigot. I have every right to criticize you for those beliefs.

 

[Foxfyre]

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

Yes it is discrimination if you are willing to bake wedding cakes for straight couples, but not willing to bake them for gay couples. No, it is not discrimination to have laws protecting people from being discriminated against.

I see. So your definition of non discrimination is requiring the business owner to serve a customer no matter how offensive or immoral or unethical he believes a product ordered is or the activity in which he is required to participate? There is no tolerance for the business owner's beliefs or sensibilities, only the customer? Correct me if that is not what you are saying.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitution enables the people of Muleshoe, TX to not have abortions if those are the values and moral principles that they adopt for themselves.

But equally so they cannot impose their values and morals on anyone else because to do would be intolerant of the values and morals of others.

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

They aren't? I'm seeing a lot of arguments here that are saying exactly that.

You have every right to be a racist and a bigot. I have every right to criticize you for those beliefs.

But do you have a right to organize and target me, threaten my customers, threaten my advertisers, threaten my associates, threaten my employees, disrupt my business, and harm me physically and materially because you don't like my beliefs? How do you equate that with tolerance?

 

[sakinago]

But they aren't imposing their values and morals on anyone else. They are exercising their own values and morals and leaving everybody else alone. So why should they not also be left alone to exercise their values and morals just because Philadelphia people disagree with them? What part of tolerance includes filing suit against them to force them to allow abortion?

By denying the right to an abortion they are imposing their values and morals.

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Ah so SCOTUS is supreme, and therefore unquestionable. Which is odd because when they struck down DOMA 2 years ago, SCOTUS said that it is a states right issue and states should have the power to choose. But a couple of months ago they disagreed with their previous ruling saying states shall have no say in the matter, and gay marriage is the law of the land. If it sounds inconsistent its because it is inconsistent. How can you trust an inconsistent body to ok laws (recently they have been in the business of rewriting laws so they can be passed, for which they have no business of doing, e.g. Recent ACA ruling).

The real trick that we all seemed to miss is that we let government define yet again what is marriage, which is a religious institution. I thought we had the freedom of religion and that government shall make no law? So if my religion or beliefs allow me to marry the same sex, or multiple partners, I should be allowed to do so, should I not?

There was nothing inconsistent in what the SCOTUS did with DOMA.

Their initial ruling was valid and everything was fine until one of the Circuit courts made an inconsistent ruling with the DOMA ruling. At that point the SCOTUS had an obligation to step back in and clarify their ruling, which they did, and it was entirely consistent with their initial ruling on DOMA.

Furthermore marriage in not a religious institution. Marriage is a state contract. Holy Matrimony is a religious institution that incorporates the state marriage contract.

There is no "freedom of religion" when it comes to state marriage contracts since people of all religions and none at all are allowed to get married.

They went against states rights...which was the original argument for striking down DOMA...so despite the reasoning for that, it still remains inconsistent. Not to mention the Supreme Court is rewriting and re-wording laws which is not their place, it's the legislative branches place. Not to mention that slavery, Jim Crow, and DOMA we're also laws at one point, so was the Supreme Court still a consistent body, or do and did they have some activism in them?

And that's contract, should the government have the power to tell you what contract you should be able to engage in (as long as your not hurting or stealing) or are they to act as a witness and enforcement of the contract? Should the government ever have had the power to say that gays cannot marry?

 

[sakinago]

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

They aren't? I'm seeing a lot of arguments here that are saying exactly that.

You have every right to be a racist and a bigot. I have every right to criticize you for those beliefs.

But do you have a right to organize and target me, threaten my customers, threaten my advertisers, threaten my associates, threaten my employees, disrupt my business, and harm me physically and materially because you don't like my beliefs? How do you equate that with tolerance?

Yes but that is not the government actively engaging, that is the people organizing and making their own decision.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

Yes it is discrimination if you are willing to bake wedding cakes for straight couples, but not willing to bake them for gay couples. No, it is not discrimination to have laws protecting people from being discriminated against.

I see. So your definition of non discrimination is requiring the business owner to serve a customer no matter how offensive or immoral or unethical he believes a product ordered is or the activity in which he is required to participate?

If I have a lawn mowing business and I mow the grass at a Baptist Church, and am in no way participating in their religion.

 

[Foxfyre]

ATTENTION EVERYBODY. I must enforce my own OP and that requires us to stay on topic. If you want to discuss SCOTUS and DOMA, please go to a thread related to that and do it or start your own. But for this thread, unless you relate it to the thread topic, it is inappropriate for this discussion.

It is easy to get sidetracked when we use these hot button issues as examples, but please use them as examples to illustrate the thread topic and do not use this thread to debate them. Thanks.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

Yes it is discrimination if you are willing to bake wedding cakes for straight couples, but not willing to bake them for gay couples. No, it is not discrimination to have laws protecting people from being discriminated against.

I see. So your definition of non discrimination is requiring the business owner to serve a customer no matter how offensive or immoral or unethical he believes a product ordered is or the activity in which he is required to participate?

If I have a lawn mowing business and I mow the grass at a Baptist Church, and am in no way participating in their religion.

I agree. But if you have a problem with those Baptists and don't want your name or your business associated with them by being on their premises, you should have every right to refuse to accept their business. I, for instance, would not be mowing the Westboro Baptist's lawn.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

As I recall the Founding Fathers set up free public libraries and schools on the understanding that in order for We the People to be able to govern ourselves we need an informed and educated electorate.

Ignorance is not "liberty", it is a form of subservience that the Church used for hundreds of years in order to maintain it's control over the people.

The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to that same thing happening in the nation that they founded for our benefit.

There is nothing in the least bit "tolerant" about allowing ignorance to be imposed on our children.

The founding fathers did absolutely nothing, zilch, zero, nada regarding what education the states and communities were required to provide for the children. They saw absolutely no constitutional role for the federal government in that regard. Promoting good education and dictating it are two entirely different things.

Again it comes down to a matter of liberty and tolerating the choices different people make for themselves and their own. We either assume those in the central government to be so godlike they know what is best for everybody. Or we assume that those who are living their lives know best how to live them.

Founding Fathers Appalled At Attacks On Free Public Education - The Winning Words Project

After outlining a legislative framework, Adams moves on to specifics. After a well-armed militia, Adams wrote, "Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."

Thomas Jefferson was so committed to his belief that self-government was doomed to fail without an educated electorate that in his 1806 State of the Union address, he called for federally funded public education, saying "An amendment to our constitution must here come in the aid of public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people." When he could not garner support for a constitutional amendment, he set about to create a framework for his vision for public education, which ultimately failed to pass the Congress. In the end, Jefferson settled for the establishment of the College of William and Mary, now the University of Virginia*, as a legacy to his undying belief in public education.

In all the research and reading I have done on this subject, I've been unable to find one Founding Father who devalued public education or argued against education of the general public. There was disagreement around who should control public education. The same conflict we see today between federalists and state's rights advocates hindered the question of whether public education should be a state matter or a federal matter, which ultimately led to the defeat of Jefferson's initiatives. Yes, tension existed as to whether states, municipalities or the federal government should control public education, but no one opposed the idea of providing one at public expense.

As I dug into the question of our core founding values, I was struck by how far astray we've gone. Jefferson believed that public education was the "key-stone of the arch of our government," and paying for it was a patriotic act. Indeed, he believed it as patriotic as paying for a well-armed military or saluting the flag.


We the People elect representatives to make decisions for us. That is what the government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people means. Abraham Lincoln understood that principle but it seems to no longer part of the education curriculum of those who believe that "government is the problem" because they don't understand that they are the government themselves.