Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Procrustes Stretched]

If a baker is allowed to refuse to offer the same service to same sex couples as he does to opposite sex couples then that is no different than refusing to offer his service to couples based on race.

His right to act upon his belief's infringes on the rights of the public to be served equally.

Maybe if they opened up as a Religious Bakery. Then then they could deny cakes to atheists, divorcees, people who beat their children and all the other sinners in the bible?

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

Like the OP, they have already conceded they are against public accommodation laws.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

- Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

Funny how that works

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

It's okay.

 

[sakinago]

If a baker is allowed to refuse to offer the same service to same sex couples as he does to opposite sex couples then that is no different than refusing to offer his service to couples based on race.

His right to act upon his belief's infringes on the rights of the public to be served equally.

Maybe if they opened up as a Religious Bakery. Then then they could deny cakes to atheists, divorcees, people who beat their children and all the other sinners in the bible?

You have the right to exercise your religion do you not? Or is that no longer allowed in the public setting, only in church and at home?

 

[sakinago]

If a baker is allowed to refuse to offer the same service to same sex couples as he does to opposite sex couples then that is no different than refusing to offer his service to couples based on race.

His right to act upon his belief's infringes on the rights of the public to be served equally.

Maybe if they opened up as a Religious Bakery. Then then they could deny cakes to atheists, divorcees, people who beat their children and all the other sinners in the bible?

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

Like the OP, they have already conceded they are against public accommodation laws.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

- Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

Funny how that works

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

 

[Foxfyre]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

And I do not see it as an attack on Christianity or any other point of view. I see it as a power play that would force somebody to participate in or contribute to an event against that somebody's will. It would be the same regardless of whether the business owner was straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. No business owner or, with very few exceptions, anybody else, should be forced to participate or contribute to an event that he or she disapproves of or just doesn't want to participate in for any reason. And I dare say nobody can give a clear, coherent rationale for how that violates anybody's rights.

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.

Can you see the difference between those two things?

Tolerance is not defined as me discriminating against people. It is allowing me to choose not to attend or be part of or participate in an event or activity even as I do not interfere with that event or activity in any way.

I would be soooooo happy if anybody on your side of the argument could tell me that they understood that simple concept.

 

[sakinago]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

I find this

"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​

..
and this...

"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?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

If a baker is allowed to refuse to offer the same service to same sex couples as he does to opposite sex couples then that is no different than refusing to offer his service to couples based on race.

His right to act upon his belief's infringes on the rights of the public to be served equally.

Maybe if they opened up as a Religious Bakery. Then then they could deny cakes to atheists, divorcees, people who beat their children and all the other sinners in the bible?

if you reguarly served the community as a business, licensed and regulated, and denied someone your services due to your own personal predidices concerning not an individual, but a group, you are denying customers rights. If you ran a theater and refused to sell tickets to any Asian or Latino because of the fact they were Asian or Latino, you would be violating not only their rights, but the law.

Here's a public water fountain, but you cannot drink from it because you are a member of a group I disapprove of. Can you see rights being violated there? Here's a bakery that is open to the public, but you cannot deal there because you are a member of a group I, the baker do not approve of. Can you see the parallel?

If you ran the best, most acclaimed bakery in town and you say I cannot be your customer because I am a member of a group you do not approve of, I have to settle for less.

And merchants are not participants in a wedding unless they are invited guests or members of the wedding party. The notion of mercantile participation is a hollow one. The goods and services merchants provide should not be exclusive to the folks those merchants approve of. Should a criminal, someone acting a fool, someone with unreasonable requests try a merchant, then the merchant can and probably should refuse service. But a same sex couple should be regarded as another customer, not someone to deny simply because they happen to be Gay.

Like the OP, they have already conceded they are against public accommodation laws.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

- Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

Funny how that works

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

 

[Valerie]

To wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest.

The claim is that this would empower, say, florists or wedding photographers to refuse to work a gay wedding on religious grounds. But under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRA test, such a commercial vendor would still have to prove that his religious convictions were substantially burdened.


And he would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent...

The New Intolerance - WSJ

 

[Coyote]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.

But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

Maybe if they opened up as a Religious Bakery. Then then they could deny cakes to atheists, divorcees, people who beat their children and all the other sinners in the bible?

Like the OP, they have already conceded they are against public accommodation laws.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

- Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

Funny how that works

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

 

[sakinago]

To wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest.

The claim is that this would empower, say, florists or wedding photographers to refuse to work a gay wedding on religious grounds. But under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRA test, such a commercial vendor would still have to prove that his religious convictions were substantially burdened.


And he would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent...

The New Intolerance - WSJ

Another law, just like many of the laws (Jim crow, DOMA,) where the government over stepped it's boundaries, and was able to dictate and infringe on peoples rights based on what was trendy at the time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever.

You did when you said you were against public accommodation laws. And are you arguing from current and existing law? Or are you arguing from some moralistic standpoint you have yet to define? What is the foundation of your arguments?

 

[sakinago]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

Sorry

 

[Foxfyre]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.

But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.

No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event/activity that I cannot condone.

But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.

 

[sakinago]

I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever.

You did when you said you were against public accommodation laws. And are you arguing from current and existing law? Or are you arguing from some moralistic standpoint you have yet to define? What is the foundation of your arguments?

Your foundations are based on current law are they not?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

Maybe if they opened up as a Religious Bakery. Then then they could deny cakes to atheists, divorcees, people who beat their children and all the other sinners in the bible?

Like the OP, they have already conceded they are against public accommodation laws.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

- Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw​

Funny how that works

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Actually Obama in 2008 said he was tolerant of gays who were married. Many Priests and Ministers say the same things. Many say they would not discriminate against a gay couple, but we know they are telling half truths

So again you have either lied or misrepresented things on yet another post. This has become habitual and I am unsure how to get the OP to put you in line

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest.

The claim is that this would empower, say, florists or wedding photographers to refuse to work a gay wedding on religious grounds. But under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRA test, such a commercial vendor would still have to prove that his religious convictions were substantially burdened.


And he would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent...

The New Intolerance - WSJ

exactly. thank you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

Yes I am, it infringes on freedom of speech and ownership of property. I am also against affirmative action, because it is an anti-discrimination law that undeniably discriminates. Can anyone say doublethink? So the government should have the right to discriminate in the case of affirmative action?

Edit: sorry didn't see the moderators last post

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

 

[Foxfyre]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined

you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

It's okay.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

Sorry

Thanks for understanding.

 

[Coyote]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.

But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.

No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event that I cannot condone.

But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.

Except - you're making the wrong comparisons. If your business specialized in catering, and you were willing to cater to my neighbors cockfight but refused to cater my cockfight - then that does involve who or what someone is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever.

You did when you said you were against public accommodation laws. And are you arguing from current and existing law? Or are you arguing from some moralistic standpoint you have yet to define? What is the foundation of your arguments?

Your foundations are based on current law are they not?

On constitutionally protected rights

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.

Instead of getting all wrapped up in any PARTICULAR case and the legal proceedings associated with it, this is an opportunity to explore conflicting "rights" and how heavily codified that interaction should be.

I've lived in California where folks don't even READ all the signs for rules and regulations that appear on EVERY doorway. There is a point where CODIFYING everything can lead to atrophy of the judgement muscles. Do you have an expectation to never be offended by some intolerant hater? That kind of deal. Because if our JUDGEMENTS on fairness and tolerance are ALL spelled out in law -- will anyone be capable or willing to give up their "social freedoms" in exchange for the security of legally prescribed correctness... Not if they never LEARNED to use personal discretion and judgement and tolerance.

Said another way.. If TOLERANCE is completely spelled out in law.. No one will ever understand the concept..