Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Procrustes Stretched]

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

"The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions. " - Foxfyre

In my head I here the voice of Strother Martin, who played 'Captain' in Cool Hand Luke: "What we've got here is... failure to communicate." NO insult, name calling, or putting down intended.

You have a two-part answer to deal with, a complex statement.
(1) The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. (2) If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

The Court overturns a decision. When it does this it is saying a case before it has sound constitutional arguments that negate a previous ruling -- on arguments. This is their defined role in the US Constitution Article III Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

The Court's opinion is what 'Judicial Power' is all about. The Court issues opinions. The fact that the Court can reverse itself is not unusual. It is on the arguments presented before the Court that the Court rules on.

 

[Foxfyre]

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

One more time, what the existing law is or how the courts are set up or how the legal system works is NOT a basis for argument in this thread. We are arguing a principle, not the law. Please do not derail the thread from the focus of the thread topic.

Since many are obviously having a hard time staying on the subject you would like to discuss, why don't you just say what the point you are wanting to make is. You have stated many times that you don't think people have a right to respond to language they feel is offensive. Other than your personal feelings, you have given no reason to agree with you. Put it out there plainly. What is your point and why.

I have said nothing of the sort. And my point is clearly stated in the OP.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

One more time, what the existing law is or how the courts are set up or how the legal system works is NOT a basis for argument in this thread. We are arguing a principle, not the law. Please do not derail the thread from the focus of the thread topic.

Then state the principle. Principles can usually be stated in a sentence or two. That is if they are simple and sound principles

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

One more time, what the existing law is or how the courts are set up or how the legal system works is NOT a basis for argument in this thread. We are arguing a principle, not the law. Please do not derail the thread from the focus of the thread topic.

Since many are obviously having a hard time staying on the subject you would like to discuss, why don't you just say what the point you are wanting to make is. You have stated many times that you don't think people have a right to respond to language they feel is offensive. Other than your personal feelings, you have given no reason to agree with you. Put it out there plainly. What is your point and why.

Ask her to state the principle

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is the OP ignoring Dante? Do the rules say OP in the Debate Now area may select which persons are eligible to engage in debate and which are not?

 

[Foxfyre]

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

"The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions. " - Foxfyre

In my head I here the voice of Strother Martin, who played 'Captain' in Cool Hand Luke: "What we've got here is... failure to communicate." NO insult, name calling, or putting down intended.

You have a two-part answer to deal with, a complex statement.
(1) The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. (2) If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

The Court overturns a decision. When it does this it is saying a case before it has sound constitutional arguments that negate a previous ruling -- on arguments. This is their defined role in the US Constitution Article III Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

The Court's opinion is what 'Judicial Power' is all about. The Court issues opinions. The fact that the Court can reverse itself is not unusual. It is on the arguments presented before the Court that the Court rules on.

If you want to debate the courts, please start your own thread or go to one of the dozens devoted to that topic.

The topic of this thread is:

1. THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

 

[Nosmo King]

N

The key to the defense of discrimination is getting the rest of us to actually believe that wedding vendors are "participants" in the wedding. This is the slender reed upon which those who want to discriminate hang their entire argument, and it's ridiculous.

If this was truly the case, we must then believe that wedding vendors are the same as invited guests or members of the wedding party itself. Along with the services normally provided, is each wedding vendor expected to dance at the reception? Be served a meal there? Bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper, or deposit an envelope of cash in a bridal purse?

This is true. Some want to split hairs and separate 'activity' from 'event'. And many if not most arguing in opposition to my argument have changed what I have argued into something easier for them to attack.

But the fact is, if you are required to go to a particular venue, provide a special product for it, provide a service for it, you are participating and/or contributing to the activity or event. Nobody should be forced to do that against their will for any reason other than essential contractual services such as would be required of police officers or firefighters, etc. Nobody's rights are being violated if I allow others their gay wedding in peace but choose not to attend it. Nobody's rights are being violated if I choose not to participate in it with special products or services either. My rights are not violated if the gay couple chooses to snub me and order their cake elsewhere.

I am arguing that everybody be allowed to be who and what they are and live their lives and conduct their businesses as they choose in peace short of violating anybody else's right. And I have no right whatsoever to demand that anybody, even a baker or florist or photographer or caterer or wedding singer, participate in my wedding if they choose not to do so.

I think it was Dante who posed a situation. You are a pizza delivery person who has been contracted to bring four pepperoni pizzas to a dormitory. you arrive, pizzas in hand and smell the acrid odor of marijuana smoke. Are you "participating" in the party, or is it just your responsibility to deliver the pies and leave?

And does every wedding vendor morally vet their clients? There may be an adulterer getting married, but as it is a heterosexual wedding, should that vendor refuse services? What about a ceremony for two people who inadequately honor their parents? Or a wedding of a mafia princess whose father kills people? Or a wedding on a Sunday afternoon? Isn't that failing to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

These are all sins specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality, however, is not mentioned there.

It does not matter what the reason is that a person chooses not to participate in an event or activity. If a business owner chose to leave the customer's premises before completing the delivery (and getting paid) in order to not be at the scene of an illegal activity, that should be his prerogative. Nobody has an unalienable right to have pizza delivered. If the pizzaria doesn't make good on the order, the customer either doesn't pay or is entitled to a refund.

Let's focus on the principle. Should others be given power to demand that we attend and/or provide special products and/or participate in their event or activity regardless of their personal opinions about that event or activity? It does not matter what the activity is.

How are my rights violated if you choose not to enter the premises of my event or otherwise choose not to be a participant in it? You haven't interfered with the activity or the event. You just choose not to be party to it.

Any wedding vendor has a portfolio of previous services. A menu, if you will. Newly weds come to the shop and browse through the menu, weighing one flower arrangement, one wedding cake, one set of wedding photographs against the others. As it turns out, same sex couples are not different as customers. They probably attended other weddings or affairs where a vendor's services were provided and decided to be patrons of that vendor based on their pleasant experiences.

Same sex couples are not demanding exceptional or special services. They are expecting the same high level of service they experienced at those other affairs.

Vendors are ready to provide the same services they have in their portfolios. And these are part and parcel of their normal services provided.

Are we then expected to accept the moral judgment of the vendor? Is it all together fitting and proper for the vendor to deny services simply because the vendor disapproves of the couple simply because they are homosexual! Black? Asian? Latino? Mixed race?

And what does the couple experience at the hands of that pious vendor? A humiliation, a disrespect a judgment that they do not deserve. In fact, no America citizen deserves.

And all this in the name of a God who wants us to respect and love one another.

Perhaps, to be fair and avoid the humiliation and judgment imposed by such vendors, the vendors should forewarn clients that they openly discriminate against their fellow American citizens. They should post a warning sign. Something like: Due to our devotion to a risen Christ who taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves, we reserve the right to deny service to those we disapprove of.

 

[BULLDOG]

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

"The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions. " - Foxfyre

In my head I here the voice of Strother Martin, who played 'Captain' in Cool Hand Luke: "What we've got here is... failure to communicate." NO insult, name calling, or putting down intended.

You have a two-part answer to deal with, a complex statement.
(1) The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. (2) If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

The Court overturns a decision. When it does this it is saying a case before it has sound constitutional arguments that negate a previous ruling -- on arguments. This is their defined role in the US Constitution Article III Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

The Court's opinion is what 'Judicial Power' is all about. The Court issues opinions. The fact that the Court can reverse itself is not unusual. It is on the arguments presented before the Court that the Court rules on.

Those are facts that should be known by every jr high Civics student. Obviously the OP. missed that class, or thinks her opinion should have more authority than our courts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

"The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions. " - Foxfyre

In my head I here the voice of Strother Martin, who played 'Captain' in Cool Hand Luke: "What we've got here is... failure to communicate." NO insult, name calling, or putting down intended.

You have a two-part answer to deal with, a complex statement.
(1) The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. (2) If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

The Court overturns a decision. When it does this it is saying a case before it has sound constitutional arguments that negate a previous ruling -- on arguments. This is their defined role in the US Constitution Article III Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

The Court's opinion is what 'Judicial Power' is all about. The Court issues opinions. The fact that the Court can reverse itself is not unusual. It is on the arguments presented before the Court that the Court rules on.

If you want to debate the courts, please start your own thread or go to one of the dozens devoted to that topic.

The topic of this thread is:

1. THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

The Courts? Where did you get that Dante wanted to debate the Courts? Again, you have misconstrued what I have written. Please stop doing this.

Dante commented upon YOU OWN WORDS.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

N

The key to the defense of discrimination is getting the rest of us to actually believe that wedding vendors are "participants" in the wedding. This is the slender reed upon which those who want to discriminate hang their entire argument, and it's ridiculous.

If this was truly the case, we must then believe that wedding vendors are the same as invited guests or members of the wedding party itself. Along with the services normally provided, is each wedding vendor expected to dance at the reception? Be served a meal there? Bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper, or deposit an envelope of cash in a bridal purse?

This is true. Some want to split hairs and separate 'activity' from 'event'. And many if not most arguing in opposition to my argument have changed what I have argued into something easier for them to attack.

But the fact is, if you are required to go to a particular venue, provide a special product for it, provide a service for it, you are participating and/or contributing to the activity or event. Nobody should be forced to do that against their will for any reason other than essential contractual services such as would be required of police officers or firefighters, etc. Nobody's rights are being violated if I allow others their gay wedding in peace but choose not to attend it. Nobody's rights are being violated if I choose not to participate in it with special products or services either. My rights are not violated if the gay couple chooses to snub me and order their cake elsewhere.

I am arguing that everybody be allowed to be who and what they are and live their lives and conduct their businesses as they choose in peace short of violating anybody else's right. And I have no right whatsoever to demand that anybody, even a baker or florist or photographer or caterer or wedding singer, participate in my wedding if they choose not to do so.

I think it was Dante who posed a situation. You are a pizza delivery person who has been contracted to bring four pepperoni pizzas to a dormitory. you arrive, pizzas in hand and smell the acrid odor of marijuana smoke. Are you "participating" in the party, or is it just your responsibility to deliver the pies and leave?

And does every wedding vendor morally vet their clients? There may be an adulterer getting married, but as it is a heterosexual wedding, should that vendor refuse services? What about a ceremony for two people who inadequately honor their parents? Or a wedding of a mafia princess whose father kills people? Or a wedding on a Sunday afternoon? Isn't that failing to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

These are all sins specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality, however, is not mentioned there.

It does not matter what the reason is that a person chooses not to participate in an event or activity. If a business owner chose to leave the customer's premises before completing the delivery (and getting paid) in order to not be at the scene of an illegal activity, that should be his prerogative. Nobody has an unalienable right to have pizza delivered. If the pizzaria doesn't make good on the order, the customer either doesn't pay or is entitled to a refund.

Let's focus on the principle. Should others be given power to demand that we attend and/or provide special products and/or participate in their event or activity regardless of their personal opinions about that event or activity? It does not matter what the activity is.

How are my rights violated if you choose not to enter the premises of my event or otherwise choose not to be a participant in it? You haven't interfered with the activity or the event. You just choose not to be party to it.

Any wedding vendor has a portfolio of previous services. A menu, if you will. Newly weds come to the shop and browse through the menu, weighing one flower arrangement, one wedding cake, one set of wedding photographs against the others. As it turns out, same sex couples are not different as customers. They probably attended other weddings or affairs where a vendor's services were provided and decided to be patrons of that vendor based on their pleasant experiences.

Same sex couples are not demanding exceptional or special services. They are expecting the same high level of service they experienced at those other affairs.

Vendors are ready to provide the same services they have in their portfolios. And these are part and parcel of their normal services provided.

Are we then expected to accept the moral judgment of the vendor? Is it all together fitting and proper for the vendor to deny services simply because the vendor disapproves of the couple simply because they are homosexual! Black? Asian? Latino? Mixed race?

And what does the couple experience at the hands of that pious vendor? A humiliation, a disrespect a judgment that they do not deserve. In fact, no America citizen deserves.

And all this in the name of a God who wants us to respect and love one another.

Perhaps, to be fair and avoid the humiliation and judgment imposed by such vendors, the vendors should forewarn clients that they openly discriminate against their fellow American citizens. They should post a warning sign. Something like: Due to our devotion to a risen Christ who taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves, we reserve the right to deny service to those we disapprove of.

But that would be -- uhm -- err -- ah -- discrimination and a violation of public accommodation laws, which the OP has already come out against...the accommodation laws

 

[Foxfyre]

N

The key to the defense of discrimination is getting the rest of us to actually believe that wedding vendors are "participants" in the wedding. This is the slender reed upon which those who want to discriminate hang their entire argument, and it's ridiculous.

If this was truly the case, we must then believe that wedding vendors are the same as invited guests or members of the wedding party itself. Along with the services normally provided, is each wedding vendor expected to dance at the reception? Be served a meal there? Bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper, or deposit an envelope of cash in a bridal purse?

This is true. Some want to split hairs and separate 'activity' from 'event'. And many if not most arguing in opposition to my argument have changed what I have argued into something easier for them to attack.

But the fact is, if you are required to go to a particular venue, provide a special product for it, provide a service for it, you are participating and/or contributing to the activity or event. Nobody should be forced to do that against their will for any reason other than essential contractual services such as would be required of police officers or firefighters, etc. Nobody's rights are being violated if I allow others their gay wedding in peace but choose not to attend it. Nobody's rights are being violated if I choose not to participate in it with special products or services either. My rights are not violated if the gay couple chooses to snub me and order their cake elsewhere.

I am arguing that everybody be allowed to be who and what they are and live their lives and conduct their businesses as they choose in peace short of violating anybody else's right. And I have no right whatsoever to demand that anybody, even a baker or florist or photographer or caterer or wedding singer, participate in my wedding if they choose not to do so.

I think it was Dante who posed a situation. You are a pizza delivery person who has been contracted to bring four pepperoni pizzas to a dormitory. you arrive, pizzas in hand and smell the acrid odor of marijuana smoke. Are you "participating" in the party, or is it just your responsibility to deliver the pies and leave?

And does every wedding vendor morally vet their clients? There may be an adulterer getting married, but as it is a heterosexual wedding, should that vendor refuse services? What about a ceremony for two people who inadequately honor their parents? Or a wedding of a mafia princess whose father kills people? Or a wedding on a Sunday afternoon? Isn't that failing to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

These are all sins specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality, however, is not mentioned there.

It does not matter what the reason is that a person chooses not to participate in an event or activity. If a business owner chose to leave the customer's premises before completing the delivery (and getting paid) in order to not be at the scene of an illegal activity, that should be his prerogative. Nobody has an unalienable right to have pizza delivered. If the pizzaria doesn't make good on the order, the customer either doesn't pay or is entitled to a refund.

Let's focus on the principle. Should others be given power to demand that we attend and/or provide special products and/or participate in their event or activity regardless of their personal opinions about that event or activity? It does not matter what the activity is.

How are my rights violated if you choose not to enter the premises of my event or otherwise choose not to be a participant in it? You haven't interfered with the activity or the event. You just choose not to be party to it.

Any wedding vendor has a portfolio of previous services. A menu, if you will. Newly weds come to the shop and browse through the menu, weighing one flower arrangement, one wedding cake, one set of wedding photographs against the others. As it turns out, same sex couples are not different as customers. They probably attended other weddings or affairs where a vendor's services were provided and decided to be patrons of that vendor based on their pleasant experiences.

Same sex couples are not demanding exceptional or special services. They are expecting the same high level of service they experienced at those other affairs.

Vendors are ready to provide the same services they have in their portfolios. And these are part and parcel of their normal services provided.

Are we then expected to accept the moral judgment of the vendor? Is it all together fitting and proper for the vendor to deny services simply because the vendor disapproves of the couple simply because they are homosexual! Black? Asian? Latino? Mixed race?

And what does the couple experience at the hands of that pious vendor? A humiliation, a disrespect a judgment that they do not deserve. In fact, no America citizen deserves.

And all this in the name of a God who wants us to respect and love one another.

Perhaps, to be fair and avoid the humiliation and judgment imposed by such vendors, the vendors should forewarn clients that they openly discriminate against their fellow American citizens. They should post a warning sign. Something like: Due to our devotion to a risen Christ who taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves, we reserve the right to deny service to those we disapprove of.

We'll just have to agree to disagree Nosmo. I gave you an excellent argument for why people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to events or activities which they choose not to be involved in. So far you and everybody else has tried to change that argument to something else or make it into something that has not been said or implied.

I have been in the position of procurement on various jobs over the years and I have frequently asked vendors to accommodate my event or activity with products they advertise for sale. Every now and then somebody declines. They don't want to drive that far or the design I want will take more time than they want to devote to a project. In one case the event featured a particularly controversial figure that the business owner simply couldn't stomach and didn't want to be a party to. Not one of those people violated my rights in any way. I either adjusted the order to something that could be accommodated or I went elsewhere for the product or service.

If I hurt your feelings or insult you or make you feel disrespected because I don't want to attend a particular event or activity you invite me to, I am sorry. I might feel insulted or disrespected because you presume to judge me and my choice. But neither of us have violated the other's rights and we each are entitled to our own beliefs, values, and convictions so long as we require nobody else to participate in them or contribute to them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

One more time, what the existing law is or how the courts are set up or how the legal system works is NOT a basis for argument in this thread. We are arguing a principle, not the law. Please do not derail the thread from the focus of the thread topic.

Since many are obviously having a hard time staying on the subject you would like to discuss, why don't you just say what the point you are wanting to make is. You have stated many times that you don't think people have a right to respond to language they feel is offensive. Other than your personal feelings, you have given no reason to agree with you. Put it out there plainly. What is your point and why.

Ask her to state the principle

I think her principal is obvious, but when stated plainly, it just sounds dumb.

As I stated before:

Defending discriminating against people as a class is always difficult to do unless one just comes right out and says so. But when the honest route is taken it exposes the argument for what it is -- bigotry, fear, anger, and hate.

When people decide they don't like another person as an individual that is one thing, but when one steps over the line into condemning an individual as belonging to a class of people there is only one honest way to view that.

Now we know people are often in denial. Denial implies a knowledge of something that one pushes away.

Tolerance? Can it be taken too far? What about intolerance of intolerance? If we were to tolerate everything we'd have anarchy. When one becomes intolerant of intolerance what is the distinction there?

 

[BULLDOG]

N

The key to the defense of discrimination is getting the rest of us to actually believe that wedding vendors are "participants" in the wedding. This is the slender reed upon which those who want to discriminate hang their entire argument, and it's ridiculous.

If this was truly the case, we must then believe that wedding vendors are the same as invited guests or members of the wedding party itself. Along with the services normally provided, is each wedding vendor expected to dance at the reception? Be served a meal there? Bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper, or deposit an envelope of cash in a bridal purse?

This is true. Some want to split hairs and separate 'activity' from 'event'. And many if not most arguing in opposition to my argument have changed what I have argued into something easier for them to attack.

But the fact is, if you are required to go to a particular venue, provide a special product for it, provide a service for it, you are participating and/or contributing to the activity or event. Nobody should be forced to do that against their will for any reason other than essential contractual services such as would be required of police officers or firefighters, etc. Nobody's rights are being violated if I allow others their gay wedding in peace but choose not to attend it. Nobody's rights are being violated if I choose not to participate in it with special products or services either. My rights are not violated if the gay couple chooses to snub me and order their cake elsewhere.

I am arguing that everybody be allowed to be who and what they are and live their lives and conduct their businesses as they choose in peace short of violating anybody else's right. And I have no right whatsoever to demand that anybody, even a baker or florist or photographer or caterer or wedding singer, participate in my wedding if they choose not to do so.

I think it was Dante who posed a situation. You are a pizza delivery person who has been contracted to bring four pepperoni pizzas to a dormitory. you arrive, pizzas in hand and smell the acrid odor of marijuana smoke. Are you "participating" in the party, or is it just your responsibility to deliver the pies and leave?

And does every wedding vendor morally vet their clients? There may be an adulterer getting married, but as it is a heterosexual wedding, should that vendor refuse services? What about a ceremony for two people who inadequately honor their parents? Or a wedding of a mafia princess whose father kills people? Or a wedding on a Sunday afternoon? Isn't that failing to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

These are all sins specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality, however, is not mentioned there.

It does not matter what the reason is that a person chooses not to participate in an event or activity. If a business owner chose to leave the customer's premises before completing the delivery (and getting paid) in order to not be at the scene of an illegal activity, that should be his prerogative. Nobody has an unalienable right to have pizza delivered. If the pizzaria doesn't make good on the order, the customer either doesn't pay or is entitled to a refund.

Let's focus on the principle. Should others be given power to demand that we attend and/or provide special products and/or participate in their event or activity regardless of their personal opinions about that event or activity? It does not matter what the activity is.

How are my rights violated if you choose not to enter the premises of my event or otherwise choose not to be a participant in it? You haven't interfered with the activity or the event. You just choose not to be party to it.

Any wedding vendor has a portfolio of previous services. A menu, if you will. Newly weds come to the shop and browse through the menu, weighing one flower arrangement, one wedding cake, one set of wedding photographs against the others. As it turns out, same sex couples are not different as customers. They probably attended other weddings or affairs where a vendor's services were provided and decided to be patrons of that vendor based on their pleasant experiences.

Same sex couples are not demanding exceptional or special services. They are expecting the same high level of service they experienced at those other affairs.

Vendors are ready to provide the same services they have in their portfolios. And these are part and parcel of their normal services provided.

Are we then expected to accept the moral judgment of the vendor? Is it all together fitting and proper for the vendor to deny services simply because the vendor disapproves of the couple simply because they are homosexual! Black? Asian? Latino? Mixed race?

And what does the couple experience at the hands of that pious vendor? A humiliation, a disrespect a judgment that they do not deserve. In fact, no America citizen deserves.

And all this in the name of a God who wants us to respect and love one another.

Perhaps, to be fair and avoid the humiliation and judgment imposed by such vendors, the vendors should forewarn clients that they openly discriminate against their fellow American citizens. They should post a warning sign. Something like: Due to our devotion to a risen Christ who taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves, we reserve the right to deny service to those we disapprove of.

We'll just have to agree to disagree Nosmo. I gave you an excellent argument for why people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to events or activities which they choose not to be involved in. So far you and everybody else has tried to change that argument to something else or make it into something that has not been said or implied.

I have been in the position of procurement on various jobs over the years and I have frequently asked vendors to accommodate my event or activity with products they advertise for sale. Every now and then somebody declines. They don't want to drive that far or the design I want will take more time than they want to devote to a project. In one case the event featured a particularly controversial figure that the business owner simply couldn't stomach and didn't want to be a party to. Not one of those people violated my rights in any way. I either adjusted the order to something that could be accommodated or I went elsewhere for the product or service.

If I hurt your feelings or insult you or make you feel disrespected because I don't want to attend a particular event or activity you invite me to, I am sorry. I might feel insulted or disrespected because you presume to judge me and my choice. But neither of us have violated the other's rights and we each are entitled to our own beliefs, values, and convictions so long as we require nobody else to participate in them or contribute to them.

Nobody has tried to change anything. Your points just don't hold up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We'll just have to agree to disagree Nosmo. I gave you an excellent argument for why people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to events or activities which they choose not to be involved in. So far you and everybody else has tried to change that argument to something else or make it into something that has not been said or implied.
.

You have not! And No, we have not.

You have consistently ignored answering what exactly the principle is you are supposedly defending. It's like we all have three guesses, all wrong.

You have redefined selling and delivering goods as participating in or contributing to events or activities . You never answered whether you consider a pizza delivery person to have participated in or having contributed to a party they deliver pizzas to

 

[Derideo_Te]

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

Obviously you don't know how our courts are set up or that that authority is specifically assigned to them. I understand that you don't believe there is anything In the constitution concerning that, but me, not being a constitutional scholar, I have to accept the judgment of the constitutional scholars on the supreme court over some poster on the internet. If you can present reason to believe you are more qualified than them to make that decision, I will certainly reconsider. The loss of ability to discriminate against gays probably does feel like a loss of rights. It isn't. It is only the loss of privilege.

"The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions. " - Foxfyre

In my head I here the voice of Strother Martin, who played 'Captain' in Cool Hand Luke: "What we've got here is... failure to communicate." NO insult, name calling, or putting down intended.

You have a two-part answer to deal with, a complex statement.
(1) The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. (2) If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

The Court overturns a decision. When it does this it is saying a case before it has sound constitutional arguments that negate a previous ruling -- on arguments. This is their defined role in the US Constitution Article III Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

The Court's opinion is what 'Judicial Power' is all about. The Court issues opinions. The fact that the Court can reverse itself is not unusual. It is on the arguments presented before the Court that the Court rules on.

If you want to debate the courts, please start your own thread or go to one of the dozens devoted to that topic.

The topic of this thread is:

1. THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

There have been multiple posters who have called on the OP to clarify the topic. This post is an attempt to clarify the topic by taking the "DISAGREE" option provided in the OP topic. This post is not an attack on the OP herself, it is not "trolling" and it is not "off topic".
THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

DISAGREE!

Intolerance means believing negative things about others who don't share your own beliefs.

There is no "two way street" requiring "tolerance" of those who make bigoted statements based upon those beliefs. Those who utter bigoted statements based upon their beliefs are open to legitimate criticism of both their statements and their underlying beliefs. It is not "intolerant" to criticize those who make bigoted statements based on their beliefs.

Equally so there is no "two way street" requiring "tolerance" of ACTS of discrimination based upon bigoted beliefs. Those who actively discriminate (by denying services) based upon their bigoted beliefs are violating the rights of others. There can be no "tolerance" of such discrimination based upon bigoted beliefs. And it is not intolerant to condemn acts of discrimination based upon bigoted beliefs.

There can be no "new law" that enables ACTS of discrimination based upon bigoted beliefs. Such a "new law" would be a violation of the rights of others.

The OP has utterly failed to make the case that such a "new law" would be "tolerance" or that it could "exist side by side in peace" without doing harm to those who are being discriminated against under this "new law" IMO.

 

[sakinago]

Haven't read all posts completely, just jumping in, I think I get the jist of them though.

The 1st amendment does not give you the right to not be offended, or to be tolerated (unless that intolerance steps over the line of injury or stealing). I will post it, I saw someone playing with the language of it, saying endorsing instead of respecting.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So someone please explain to me how fining a baker 150,000 for exercising his 1st, is not in violation of the 1st, or the 8th amendment? "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I just start with that

 

[Foxfyre]

Haven't read all posts completely, just jumping in, I think I get the jist of them though.

The 1st amendment does not give you the right to not be offended, or to be tolerated (unless that intolerance steps over the line of injury or stealing). I will post it, I saw someone playing with the language of it, saying endorsing instead of respecting.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So someone please explain to me how fining a baker 150,000 for exercising his 1st, is not in violation of the 1st, or the 8th amendment? "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I just start with that

Well I haven't allowed anybody else to use existing law as an argument so I have to apply that policy to you too. Sorry. (I am looking at the First Amendment as existing law of course.)

So the argument some want to make is presumably a business person must give up his rights to exercise his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business and must accommodate a customer who demands a product or service regardless of the activity or event involved or else it is okay to punish the business owner.

The argument I make, and your post seems to support my argument at least in part, is that tolerance must allow people the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated with even as the customer has every right to that activity or event. I see tolerance as going both ways and not in just one direction, even if I strongly approve of the event or activity involved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Il

FOXFYRE SAID:

“It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.”

No one ever said it was, nor does anyone advocate for any such thing, and this has never been the case since the advent of the Republic – this fails as a straw man fallacy; you seek to contrive and propagate the lie that the Federal government “dictates to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives,” and then proceed to attack this rhetorical contrivance that in no way represents your opponents' position.

Again, states and local jurisdictions are at liberty to enact laws and measures as they see fit, provided those laws and measures comport with the Constitution and its case law, as was the original intent of the Framers.

The reason for this is very simple and easy to understand:

As citizens our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, and they can be neither taken or bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Citizens' inalienable right are recognized and acknowledged by the Constitution, its case law, and safeguarded by the rule of law, immune from attack by the state.

Because citizens' rights manifest as a consequence of their humanity, they go wherever a citizens might go, to any state or jurisdiction, as citizens have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction they so desire.

Therefore, citizens do not forfeit their rights merely as a consequence of their state or jurisdiction of residence, their rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' the states may not decide who will or will not have his civil rights, and compelling a resident to leave his state as a 'remedy' to his civil rights being violated by the state is fundamentally un-Constitutional.

Given these facts of law the Federal government isn't 'dictating' anything when a state or local law is invalidated by the courts because it's repugnant to the Constitution, where the people of that state or local jurisdiction have erred by seeking to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights.

how about the case of the baker fined 150,000 for exercising his first, DOMA, slavery, Jim Crow, graduated INCOME tax, asset forfeit seizure, eminent domain (in the name of private business), affirmative action (discrimination), NSA spying, abuse of executive order by every president for the past 50 years, prohibition of drugs without a constitutional amendment, DUI (or whatever) checkpoints, infringements on the 2nd, the dissolution of trial by jury, the IRS targeting, the IRS in general, the federal reserve (private bank issuing currency is a greater threat than a standing army), fisa court used on domestic citizens, licensing for pretty much any business you can think of, unelected bureaus creating laws, and selective taxing?

The baker who violated his jurisdiction's public accommodations law concerning sexual orientation was justly and lawfully fined in accordance with the Constitution.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions and regulatory measures by government, such as public accommodations laws.

State and local public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US), where state and local jurisdictions are at liberty to regulate local markets, as merchants denying services to members of the community based solely on who they are does in fact disrupt the local markets and all other interrelated markets.

Moreover, just and proper public accommodations laws in no way 'violate' religious liberty or the First Amendment (Employment Division v. Smith), as one may not use religious beliefs as 'justification' to violate or ignore a just and proper law.

 

[BULLDOG]

Haven't read all posts completely, just jumping in, I think I get the jist of them though.

The 1st amendment does not give you the right to not be offended, or to be tolerated (unless that intolerance steps over the line of injury or stealing). I will post it, I saw someone playing with the language of it, saying endorsing instead of respecting.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So someone please explain to me how fining a baker 150,000 for exercising his 1st, is not in violation of the 1st, or the 8th amendment? "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I just start with that

Well I haven't allowed anybody else to use existing law as an argument so I have to apply that policy to you too. Sorry. (I am looking at the First Amendment as existing law of course.)

So the argument some want to make is presumably a business person must give up his rights to his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business and must accommodate a customer who demands a product or service regardless of the activity or event involved or else it is okay to punish the business owner.

The argument I make, and your post seems to support my argument at least in part, is that tolerance must allow people the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated with even as the customer has every right to that activity or event. I see tolerance as going both ways and not in just one direction, even if I strongly approve of the event or activity involved.

You're quote
"
So the argument some want to make is presumably a business person must give up his rights to his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business and must accommodate a customer who demands a product or service regardless of the activity or event involved or else it is okay to punish the business owner."


Who made that argument? I haven't seen anyone state that but you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Haven't read all posts completely, just jumping in, I think I get the jist of them though.

The 1st amendment does not give you the right to not be offended, or to be tolerated (unless that intolerance steps over the line of injury or stealing). I will post it, I saw someone playing with the language of it, saying endorsing instead of respecting.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So someone please explain to me how fining a baker 150,000 for exercising his 1st, is not in violation of the 1st, or the 8th amendment? "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I just start with that

Well I haven't allowed anybody else to use existing law as an argument so I have to apply that policy to you too. Sorry. (I am looking at the First Amendment as existing law of course.)

So the argument some want to make is presumably a business person must give up his rights to his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business and must accommodate a customer who demands a product or service regardless of the activity or event involved or else it is okay to punish the business owner.

The argument I make, and your post seems to support my argument at least in part, is that tolerance must allow people the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated with even as the customer has every right to that activity or event. I see tolerance as going both ways and not in just one direction, even if I strongly approve of the event or activity involved.

You're quote
"
So the argument some want to make is presumably a business person must give up his rights to his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business and must accommodate a customer who demands a product or service regardless of the activity or event involved or else it is okay to punish the business owner."


Who made that argument? I haven't seen anyone state that but you.

Just about everybody opposing my argument has made that argument. Show how they have argued something different if you can.