Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

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.

Reported as thread derailment as I have repeatedly pointed to the OP statement that existing law is not to be used as an argument in this thread.

Please focus on the topic as described and explained in the OP.

 

[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.

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

Specifically, who has argued that? Quotes should be easy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Note:

I certainly dont want to run rough-shod on what is a civil and good discussion..
But can we stipulate here that Structured Debate is under Zone2 rules as a minimum?

All posts with no content relevant to the OP declared topic MAY BE deleted. And that includes posts
that are simply whining about "reporting" posts. Press the button and report them. But please don't
make your reporting action part of the conversation here.

If the OP wants to enforce one of their rules stated in the OP -- they have a right to do so. But it's only thread derailment if a poster INSISTS on ignoring the corrections..

Some clean-up done here. But nothing of substance. Carry on...

FlaCalTenn

 

[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

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.

Ok I will abide by the rules.

Next point being...what is seen as tolerant and intolerant is very fluid. Do you want laws that are fluid? Intolerance was seen by Stalin and Mao as not agreeing with the government, and it was punishable by death. A majority of the German people were tolerant of rounding up Jews. We were also tolerant in both world wars to round up the Japanese and Germans nationals. Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage, as was Hilary.

Who is defining tolerance, and who gets to enforce those rules. Let's say huckabee (god forbid) gets elected, guess what's going to be seen as intolerance? Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws. Laws that protect us from governments, who time and time again siphon more and more power away from people to serve their own needs. Let us be a nation of laws not men, and I'm sorry you do not have the right to not be offended, if you choose to offend people, do not cry when there are consequences (that do not come from the government )

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

No one has presumably or otherwise insisted or insinuated "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."

this is again the OP misconstruing what 'some' people have argued.

The OP has also yet again conflated selling of goods and services with participation or support of an event or activity

No one I can see has indicated that people must be denied "the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated" No one. Try linking to a post where somebody has said these things

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Show where people have done what you are claiming. It should be very easy. No one has claimed "a business person must give up his rights to his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business" No one

 

[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

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.

No one has presumably or otherwise insisted or insinuated "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."

this is again the OP misconstruing what 'some' people have argued.

The OP has also yet again conflated selling of goods and services with participation or support of an event or activity

No one I can see has indicated that people must be denied "the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated" No one. Try linking to a post where somebody has said these things

Is baking a wedding cake a work of art? Does that wedding cake symbolize a celebration of that marriage?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Ok I will abide by the rules.

Next point being...what is seen as tolerant and intolerant is very fluid. Do you want laws that are fluid? Intolerance was seen by Stalin and Mao as not agreeing with the government, and it was punishable by death. A majority of the German people were tolerant of rounding up Jews. We were also tolerant in both world wars to round up the Japanese and Germans nationals. Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage, as was Hilary.

Who is defining tolerance, and who gets to enforce those rules. Let's say huckabee (god forbid) gets elected, guess what's going to be seen as intolerance? Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws. Laws that protect us from governments, who time and time again siphon more and more power away from people to serve their own needs. Let us be a nation of laws not men, and I'm sorry you do not have the right to not be offended, if you choose to offend people, do not cry when there are consequences (that do not come from the government )

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

No one has presumably or otherwise insisted or insinuated "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."

this is again the OP misconstruing what 'some' people have argued.

The OP has also yet again conflated selling of goods and services with participation or support of an event or activity

No one I can see has indicated that people must be denied "the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated" No one. Try linking to a post where somebody has said these things

Is baking a wedding cake a work of art? Does that wedding cake symbolize a celebration of that marriage?

A work of art? Are you saying you think an artist or a dressmaker should not have to sell their goods if they will be used at a wedding of a gay couple?

The cake symbolizes nothing. The joined hands of the couple cutting the cake symbolizes something. It;s tradition and nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It's all part of a celebration, a party after the vows.

How about pizza delivery people? When they deliver pizzas to an event or celebration are they participating or being forced to recognize those events as worthy or valuable?

 

[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

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.

Ok I will abide by the rules.

Next point being...what is seen as tolerant and intolerant is very fluid. Do you want laws that are fluid? Intolerance was seen by Stalin and Mao as not agreeing with the government, and it was punishable by death. A majority of the German people were tolerant of rounding up Jews. We were also tolerant in both world wars to round up the Japanese and Germans nationals. Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage, as was Hilary.

Who is defining tolerance, and who gets to enforce those rules. Let's say huckabee (god forbid) gets elected, guess what's going to be seen as intolerance? Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws. Laws that protect us from governments, who time and time again siphon more and more power away from people to serve their own needs. Let us be a nation of laws not men, and I'm sorry you do not have the right to not be offended, if you choose to offend people, do not cry when there are consequences (that do not come from the government )

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed

Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

 

[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.

Ok I will abide by the rules.

Next point being...what is seen as tolerant and intolerant is very fluid. Do you want laws that are fluid? Intolerance was seen by Stalin and Mao as not agreeing with the government, and it was punishable by death. A majority of the German people were tolerant of rounding up Jews. We were also tolerant in both world wars to round up the Japanese and Germans nationals. Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage, as was Hilary.

Who is defining tolerance, and who gets to enforce those rules. Let's say huckabee (god forbid) gets elected, guess what's going to be seen as intolerance? Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws. Laws that protect us from governments, who time and time again siphon more and more power away from people to serve their own needs. Let us be a nation of laws not men, and I'm sorry you do not have the right to not be offended, if you choose to offend people, do not cry when there are consequences (that do not come from the government )

Well, in this thread I am the authority who gets to define 'tolerance' per the thread rules.

And for purposes of this discussion only, the definition I believe is reflected in the thread 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.

In this sense tolerance means that each person is allowed peace and non interference to live and act and speak as he/she sees fit according to his/her beliefs and convictions, however such beliefs and convictions are stated and regardless of how unpopular or politically incorrect his beliefs and convictions might be so long as nobody else's rights are violated. It is my right to think, believe, and say whatever with impunity if that is what I believe regardless of how wrong or offended somebody else might be by that. What I can't do is force somebody else to participate in or contribute to or agree with what I believe in.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Ok I will abide by the rules.

Next point being...what is seen as tolerant and intolerant is very fluid. Do you want laws that are fluid? Intolerance was seen by Stalin and Mao as not agreeing with the government, and it was punishable by death. A majority of the German people were tolerant of rounding up Jews. We were also tolerant in both world wars to round up the Japanese and Germans nationals. Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage, as was Hilary.

Who is defining tolerance, and who gets to enforce those rules. Let's say huckabee (god forbid) gets elected, guess what's going to be seen as intolerance? Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws. Laws that protect us from governments, who time and time again siphon more and more power away from people to serve their own needs. Let us be a nation of laws not men, and I'm sorry you do not have the right to not be offended, if you choose to offend people, do not cry when there are consequences (that do not come from the government )

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed

Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?

 

[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

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.

No one has presumably or otherwise insisted or insinuated "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."

this is again the OP misconstruing what 'some' people have argued.

The OP has also yet again conflated selling of goods and services with participation or support of an event or activity

No one I can see has indicated that people must be denied "the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated" No one. Try linking to a post where somebody has said these things

Is baking a wedding cake a work of art? Does that wedding cake symbolize a celebration of that marriage?

A work of art? Are you saying you think an artist or a dressmaker should not have to sell their goods if they will be used at a wedding of a gay couple?

The cake symbolizes nothing. The joined hands of the couple cutting the cake symbolizes something. It;s tradition and nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It's all part of a celebration, a party after the vows.

How about pizza delivery people? When they deliver pizzas to an event or celebration are they participating or being forced to recognize those events as worthy or valuable?

Yes I am saying they should have the right of consciousness. Just like a painter should not be forced (or suffer fine) to paint a picture of someone they do not like. Just like Jewish chef should not be forced to prepare a pig roast. Just like a writer should not be forced to write a book with a premise they fundamentally disagree with.

And yes, the gaudy cakes at weddings symbolize a celebration of that love. Just like wedding rings.

And yes those pizza caterers are participating in that event, they pour time, energy, and (hopefully) care to provide a product specifically for that event.

 

[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.

At no point have I EVER in any thread or on any subject expected others to agree with me and I leave my personal feelings out of it. I do expect those participating in this thread to stay on topic and discuss the topic or find something else to do. The point I have made and continue to make is expressed in the OP. Please focus on that.

 

[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

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.

Ok I will abide by the rules.

Next point being...what is seen as tolerant and intolerant is very fluid. Do you want laws that are fluid? Intolerance was seen by Stalin and Mao as not agreeing with the government, and it was punishable by death. A majority of the German people were tolerant of rounding up Jews. We were also tolerant in both world wars to round up the Japanese and Germans nationals. Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage, as was Hilary.

Who is defining tolerance, and who gets to enforce those rules. Let's say huckabee (god forbid) gets elected, guess what's going to be seen as intolerance? Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws. Laws that protect us from governments, who time and time again siphon more and more power away from people to serve their own needs. Let us be a nation of laws not men, and I'm sorry you do not have the right to not be offended, if you choose to offend people, do not cry when there are consequences (that do not come from the government )

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed

Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?

The Oregon bakers, fined 150,000 for not baking a cake for a gay wedding. Also a case in ny I believe, of a couple who owned a farm that was rented out as a wedding venue, told gay couple we can't allow having the ceremony here but please have your reception here if you like... Fined 14,000 I believe

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

No one has presumably or otherwise insisted or insinuated "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."

this is again the OP misconstruing what 'some' people have argued.

The OP has also yet again conflated selling of goods and services with participation or support of an event or activity

No one I can see has indicated that people must be denied "the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated" No one. Try linking to a post where somebody has said these things

Is baking a wedding cake a work of art? Does that wedding cake symbolize a celebration of that marriage?

A work of art? Are you saying you think an artist or a dressmaker should not have to sell their goods if they will be used at a wedding of a gay couple?

The cake symbolizes nothing. The joined hands of the couple cutting the cake symbolizes something. It;s tradition and nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It's all part of a celebration, a party after the vows.

How about pizza delivery people? When they deliver pizzas to an event or celebration are they participating or being forced to recognize those events as worthy or valuable?

Yes I am saying they should have the right of consciousness. Just like a painter should not be forced (or suffer fine) to paint a picture of someone they do not like. Just like Jewish chef should not be forced to prepare a pig roast. Just like a writer should not be forced to write a book with a premise they fundamentally disagree with.

And yes, the gaudy cakes at weddings symbolize a celebration of that love. Just like wedding rings.

And yes those pizza caterers are participating in that event, they pour time, energy, and (hopefully) care to provide a product specifically for that event.

You mean the right of conscience. I see.

No painter has been forced to paint a painting. No baker has been forced to attend the wedding of a gay couple. The argument has been that the baker would be participating somehow in the wedding, which is an absurd argument. The baker is selling cakes. If your argument is you are against public accommodation laws as the OP admitted to being, just say so.

The cakes are not part of the ceremony. The ring is. When people buy a wedding ring are they asked what kind of a wedding it will be?

You admit to believing that delivering a pizza makes the delivery person part of an event they are delivering to. That idea is nonsense. By no definition can your statements be supported as accurate or true.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Ok I will abide by the rules.

Next point being...what is seen as tolerant and intolerant is very fluid. Do you want laws that are fluid? Intolerance was seen by Stalin and Mao as not agreeing with the government, and it was punishable by death. A majority of the German people were tolerant of rounding up Jews. We were also tolerant in both world wars to round up the Japanese and Germans nationals. Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage, as was Hilary.

Who is defining tolerance, and who gets to enforce those rules. Let's say huckabee (god forbid) gets elected, guess what's going to be seen as intolerance? Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws. Laws that protect us from governments, who time and time again siphon more and more power away from people to serve their own needs. Let us be a nation of laws not men, and I'm sorry you do not have the right to not be offended, if you choose to offend people, do not cry when there are consequences (that do not come from the government )

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed

Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?

The Oregon bakers, fined 150,000 for not baking a cake for a gay wedding. Also a case in ny I believe, of a couple who owned a farm that was rented out as a wedding venue, told gay couple we can't allow having the ceremony here but please have your reception here if you like... Fined 14,000 I believe

hmm... if you can't link to these supposed cases it is irrelevant what you claim. And if you can and do I'd bet the full context of the supposed cases would destroy your own arguments

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

At no point have I EVER in any thread or on any subject expected others to agree with me and I leave my personal feelings out of it. I do expect those participating in this thread to stay on topic and discuss the topic or find something else to do. The point I have made and continue to make is expressed in the OP. Please focus on that.

Why is the OP ignoring some posters? If this is a private debate why not close it off in private messages?

So in reality (addressing your content) you are expecting people to agree with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Tolerance cannot be a two-way street, otherwise there would be no need for it.

When one tolerates another it is a one-sided act.