Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Derideo_Te]

What tolerance is being expressed by those who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood?

Should this "new law" of tolerance advocated by the OP allow anyone to violate the law and spread malicious falsehoods about those whose "values and morals" they happen to be intolerant towards?

Those that petitioned A&E were freely expressing their opinions and asking for redress for what they perceived to be a violation of the rights of their fellow Americans. They did not take what he said out of context. They did not do anything that was illegal.

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

But at least we as a people have a social contract called The Constitution that authorizes the government to organize and fund a military for purposes of our common defense. Now you can certainly make an argument that many, even most wars we have been involved in did not fit the criteria of common defense and I agree, we should not be required to fund and participate in wars that are extra-constitutional activities. Certainly we should not be requird to do that without a definitive vote by those we elect to represent and speak for us. That is certainly something that should be in the national conversation with both sides of that argument given full rein to make their best arguments.

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

I simply used war as an example of the fact that not all of us like where our tax dollars go. Maybe I should have said "wars of choice".

Abortion is legal, and no tax dollars are going towards funding abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood received a whopping record $542 million in federal taxpayer dollars in 2012. Would they be able to offer hundreds of thousands of affordable abortion services without that money coming in even if they say it is used for other things? Even the KKK has had its charitable wing doing good by day even as it donned white sheets for terrorist activities by night. Would you be good with $542 million in tax dollars going to the KKK to help fund its charitable activities? Note: I am NOT comparing Planned Parenthood to the KKK here so don't even go there.

It doesn't matter whether abortion is legal or not. What matters is whether tolerance and liberty allows people to live their lives according to their own moral convictions so long as they leave everybody else alone.

PP does not use any taxpayer funds for abortions since that is prohibited by law.

Here are the facts about PP services and funding;

Planned Parenthood

Only 3% of their services are "despised". Everything else is either health related or the prevention of pregnancies thereby reducing the need for abortions amongst the less fortunate.

Speaking for myself only as someone who does donate to PP I don't understand the intolerance towards providing essential services to women who don't otherwise have access to healthcare. Why wouldn't anyone support the 35% of PP funding that is used to prevent abortions and roughly equates to what PP receives in taxpayer funding.

 

[Carla_Danger]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

 

[Foxfyre]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

Remember that existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So I don't care what the law is. I want to know the argument for tolerance when a baker is forced to participate in an activity he neither advertises nor would ever choose to do on his own and in which he views as morally or ethically repugnant. And I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage in the post that offered you an example so let's leave that out of it too please and just focus on the principle involved.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I did not vote for #1 because it requires clarifying, that being the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

I am more interested in whether you voted for #2. In today's PC and 'dictated tolerance' world, many Americans would easily vote for #1 but would not vote for #2. The thesis of the thread suggests that tolerance would allow both points of view.

I voted for both #1 and #2. Abortion (in general) should be legal but some abortions (late term for example) should not be allowed.

Normally, people only get late term abortions if there is a serious risk to the mother or the fetus.

 

[Esmeralda]

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

But at least we as a people have a social contract called The Constitution that authorizes the government to organize and fund a military for purposes of our common defense. Now you can certainly make an argument that many, even most wars we have been involved in did not fit the criteria of common defense and I agree, we should not be required to fund and participate in wars that are extra-constitutional activities. Certainly we should not be requird to do that without a definitive vote by those we elect to represent and speak for us. That is certainly something that should be in the national conversation with both sides of that argument given full rein to make their best arguments.

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

I simply used war as an example of the fact that not all of us like where our tax dollars go. Maybe I should have said "wars of choice".

Abortion is legal, and no tax dollars are going towards funding abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood received a whopping record $542 million in federal taxpayer dollars in 2012. Would they be able to offer hundreds of thousands of affordable abortion services without that money coming in even if they say it is used for other things? Even the KKK has had its charitable wing doing good by day even as it donned white sheets for terrorist activities by night. Would you be good with $542 million in tax dollars going to the KKK to help fund its charitable activities? Note: I am NOT comparing Planned Parenthood to the KKK here so don't even go there.

It doesn't matter whether abortion is legal or not. What matters is whether tolerance and liberty allows people to live their lives according to their own moral convictions so long as they leave everybody else alone.

PP does not use any taxpayer funds for abortions since that is prohibited by law.

Here are the facts about PP services and funding;

Planned Parenthood

Only 3% of their services are "despised". Everything else is either health related or the prevention of pregnancies thereby reducing the need for abortions amongst the less fortunate.

Speaking for myself only as someone who does donate to PP I don't understand the intolerance towards providing essential services to women who don't otherwise have access to healthcare. Why wouldn't anyone support the 35% of PP funding that is used to prevent abortions and roughly equates to what PP receives in taxpayer funding.

IMO Planned Parenthood is one of the best things the US has ever had. I remember when I was a young woman, when I moved out and lived on my own at 17 and went to a city university. I was an independent woman--paying my own way for everything.

When I became sexually active, I went to PP and got information about birth control and STDs. I went on the pill. When my mom found out I was sexually active, I told her I was already on the pill and though she had meant to take me to her doctor to get that done, she still took me to be examined and to get a shot for measels to help prevent any birth defect in case there was a baby.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a tolerant parent; therefore, there is a huge need for an entity such as PP in our nation. The ones who want to defund it are those who cannot tolerate the idea that young people or poor people are sexually active and need the assistance of such an entity as PP.

There are young women and poor women everywhere, even in Muleshoe, TX, who may need the services of Planned Parenthood. The intolerant people of that area do not have the right to impose their values on those women.

 

[Derideo_Te]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

And the same thing applies if the customer in question was from a white supremacist group and wanted anti-black slogans on their confections.

The baker might be personally opposed to racism but the PA laws means that he needs to bake their cakes. To do otherwise is to risk his business.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody is saying Planned Parenthood should be put out of business. They are just saying that people should not be forced to participate in or contribute to something they believe to be immoral, even evil. What part of tolerance demands that people fund you even if they despise what you do?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

But at least we as a people have a social contract called The Constitution that authorizes the government to organize and fund a military for purposes of our common defense. Now you can certainly make an argument that many, even most wars we have been involved in did not fit the criteria of common defense and I agree, we should not be required to fund and participate in wars that are extra-constitutional activities. Certainly we should not be requird to do that without a definitive vote by those we elect to represent and speak for us. That is certainly something that should be in the national conversation with both sides of that argument given full rein to make their best arguments.

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

I simply used war as an example of the fact that not all of us like where our tax dollars go. Maybe I should have said "wars of choice".

Abortion is legal, and no tax dollars are going towards funding abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood received a whopping record $542 million in federal taxpayer dollars in 2012. Would they be able to offer hundreds of thousands of affordable abortion services without that money coming in even if they say it is used for other things? Even the KKK has had its charitable wing doing good by day even as it donned white sheets for terrorist activities by night. Would you be good with $542 million in tax dollars going to the KKK to help fund its charitable activities? Note: I am NOT comparing Planned Parenthood to the KKK here so don't even go there.

It doesn't matter whether abortion is legal or not. What matters is whether tolerance and liberty allows people to live their lives according to their own moral convictions so long as they leave everybody else alone.

PP does not use any taxpayer funds for abortions since that is prohibited by law.

Here are the facts about PP services and funding;

Planned Parenthood

Only 3% of their services are "despised". Everything else is either health related or the prevention of pregnancies thereby reducing the need for abortions amongst the less fortunate.

Speaking for myself only as someone who does donate to PP I don't understand the intolerance towards providing essential services to women who don't otherwise have access to healthcare. Why wouldn't anyone support the 35% of PP funding that is used to prevent abortions and roughly equates to what PP receives in taxpayer funding.

I don't care what Planned Parenthood does or does not do. This thread is not about the virtues or lack thereof of any organization.

But if a person believe Planned Parenthood exists for immoral or unethical reasons, should that person be forced to contribute to Planned Parenthood or any other organization that he believes is involved in immoral or unethical practices?

 

[Carla_Danger]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

Remember that existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So I don't care what the law is. I want to know the argument for tolerance when a baker is forced to participate in an activity he neither advertises nor would ever choose to do on his own and in which he views as morally or ethically repugnant. And I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage in the post that offered you an example so let's leave that out of it too please and just focus on the principle involved.

No one is forcing the baker into opening a business, which is open to the public. No one is forcing him to put a business on a road in which we've all paid for.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

But at least we as a people have a social contract called The Constitution that authorizes the government to organize and fund a military for purposes of our common defense. Now you can certainly make an argument that many, even most wars we have been involved in did not fit the criteria of common defense and I agree, we should not be required to fund and participate in wars that are extra-constitutional activities. Certainly we should not be requird to do that without a definitive vote by those we elect to represent and speak for us. That is certainly something that should be in the national conversation with both sides of that argument given full rein to make their best arguments.

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

I simply used war as an example of the fact that not all of us like where our tax dollars go. Maybe I should have said "wars of choice".

Abortion is legal, and no tax dollars are going towards funding abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood received a whopping record $542 million in federal taxpayer dollars in 2012. Would they be able to offer hundreds of thousands of affordable abortion services without that money coming in even if they say it is used for other things? Even the KKK has had its charitable wing doing good by day even as it donned white sheets for terrorist activities by night. Would you be good with $542 million in tax dollars going to the KKK to help fund its charitable activities? Note: I am NOT comparing Planned Parenthood to the KKK here so don't even go there.

It doesn't matter whether abortion is legal or not. What matters is whether tolerance and liberty allows people to live their lives according to their own moral convictions so long as they leave everybody else alone.

PP does not use any taxpayer funds for abortions since that is prohibited by law.

Here are the facts about PP services and funding;

Planned Parenthood

Only 3% of their services are "despised". Everything else is either health related or the prevention of pregnancies thereby reducing the need for abortions amongst the less fortunate.

Speaking for myself only as someone who does donate to PP I don't understand the intolerance towards providing essential services to women who don't otherwise have access to healthcare. Why wouldn't anyone support the 35% of PP funding that is used to prevent abortions and roughly equates to what PP receives in taxpayer funding.

IMO Planned Parenthood is one of the best things the US has ever had. I remember when I was a young women, when I moved out and lived on my own at 17 and went to a city university. I was an independent woman--paying my own way for everything.

When I became sexually active, I went to PP and got information about birth control and STDs. I went on the pill. When my mom found out I was sexually active, I told her I was already on the pill and though she had meant to take me to her doctor to get that done, she still took me to be examined and to get a shot for measels to help prevent any birth defect in case there was a baby.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a tolerant paren; therefore, there is a huge need for an entity such as PP in our nation. The ones who want to defund it are those who cannot tolerate the idea that young people or poor people are sexually active and need the assistance of such an entity as PP.

This thread is not about the virtues or lack thereof of Planned Parenthood. It is not about the virtues or lack thereof of any other organization.

The question is not whether any organization is worthy of donations or whatever. The question is whether any person should be forced to participate in or contribute to an organization or activity the person believes to be immoral, unethical, or whatever.

 

[BULLDOG]

Doesn't matter whether we have it or not so far as the OP is concerned. But make your argument for why somebody should be able to speak their mind, even if it is politically incorrect or offensive, without fear of some organized mob trying to punish him/her materially or physically. Or why those organized mobs are justified in shutting down politically incorrect speech if that is what you believe.

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

I want to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. You OK with that?

Not unless there is actually a fire. Shouting 'fire' when there isn't one can put my physical self and everybody else in that theater in danger of physical harm. That is doing something, not just believing or thinking something.

It is that distinction that I think the PC crowd doesn't get. They equate thought and beliefs with action. And punish it in the same way. Thought and belief is not action, however, and that should become the understanding throughout the nation.

Yelling FIRE is certainly an action. Hating gays is a protected right. Denying them their rights is not.

Agreed. But refusing to participate in an event that one considers wrong or immoral or offensive or just because they aren't in the mood to deal with it on a given day denies nobody any rights whatsoever. The other person(s) has every right to have their legal event. But if tolerance is in effect, they do not have the right to insist that somebody else participate in it or contribute to it.

Nobody should be forced to participate in anything they don't want to do, however like in everything else, there are sometimes required tradeoffs. I suspect you are referring to the gay wedding cake. Those people chose to do business with the general public. The laws require them to not discriminate if they are to continue doing that. They have the right to chose to quit making cakes, but if they wish to continue, they have to follow the laws governing that business. If their religion forbade them from washing their hands before handling food, they would not be exempt from that either.

 

[Foxfyre]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

Remember that existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So I don't care what the law is. I want to know the argument for tolerance when a baker is forced to participate in an activity he neither advertises nor would ever choose to do on his own and in which he views as morally or ethically repugnant. And I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage in the post that offered you an example so let's leave that out of it too please and just focus on the principle involved.

No one is forcing the baker into opening a business, which is open to the public. No one is forcing him to put a business on a road in which we've all paid for.

So your opinion is that a person who goes into business is consenting to immoral and unethical activities as he sees those and is consenting to participate in and contribute to them? Or that anybody who goes into business should understand that he is consenting to that?

 

[BULLDOG]

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the constitution dictates morals. Morals can not be legislated. Actions are all the constitution has any authority over.

 

[Esmeralda]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

Remember that existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So I don't care what the law is. I want to know the argument for tolerance when a baker is forced to participate in an activity he neither advertises nor would ever choose to do on his own and in which he views as morally or ethically repugnant. And I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage in the post that offered you an example so let's leave that out of it too please and just focus on the principle involved.

There is a huge problem with logic in that argument. A baker is a businessman. Not making cakes for someone you don't like is no different than not allowing blacks (or gays or any other type of person you don't like) to eat in your restaurant. If you don't want to provide equal service for all people, then don't go into business.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not vote for #1 because it requires clarifying, that being the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

I am more interested in whether you voted for #2. In today's PC and 'dictated tolerance' world, many Americans would easily vote for #1 but would not vote for #2. The thesis of the thread suggests that tolerance would allow both points of view.

I voted for both #1 and #2. Abortion (in general) should be legal but some abortions (late term for example) should not be allowed.

Normally, people only get late term abortions if there is a serious risk to the mother or the fetus.

Please stay on topic. Any discussion of abortion must be within the parameters of the stated thread topic. This thread is not about abortion itself.

 

[Carla_Danger]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

Remember that existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So I don't care what the law is. I want to know the argument for tolerance when a baker is forced to participate in an activity he neither advertises nor would ever choose to do on his own and in which he views as morally or ethically repugnant. And I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage in the post that offered you an example so let's leave that out of it too please and just focus on the principle involved.

No one is forcing the baker into opening a business, which is open to the public. No one is forcing him to put a business on a road in which we've all paid for.

So your opinion is that a person who goes into business is consenting to immoral and unethical activities as he sees those and is consenting to participate in and contribute to them? Or that anybody who goes into business should understand that he is consenting to that?

I don't think baking a damn cake is consenting to anything, it's simply baking a damn cake. An no, I don't believe people should be able to use their religion to discriminate in their place of business that was built on the roads all of us have paid for.

 

[Meathead]

There is a huge problem with logic in that argument. A baker is a businessman. Not making cakes for someone you don't like is no different than not allowing blacks (or gays or any other type of person you don't like) to eat in your restaurant. If you don't want to provide equal service for all people, then don't go into business.

So if a barber does not want to cut the hair of a lice-infested person, he would be bound to on the principle, and i quote, "If you don't want to provide equal service for all people, then don't go into business."

 

[Esmeralda]

# 6 Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.


Who has to participate in activities they oppose? I need an example.

Thank you.

Yes, you are right. The question is far too vague and general for anyone to give a reasonable answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

You should be able to say what you want with no fear.
Mobs should be controlled and punished at all costs.

I want to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. You OK with that?

Not unless there is actually a fire. Shouting 'fire' when there isn't one can put my physical self and everybody else in that theater in danger of physical harm. That is doing something, not just believing or thinking something.

It is that distinction that I think the PC crowd doesn't get. They equate thought and beliefs with action. And punish it in the same way. Thought and belief is not action, however, and that should become the understanding throughout the nation.

Yelling FIRE is certainly an action. Hating gays is a protected right. Denying them their rights is not.

Agreed. But refusing to participate in an event that one considers wrong or immoral or offensive or just because they aren't in the mood to deal with it on a given day denies nobody any rights whatsoever. The other person(s) has every right to have their legal event. But if tolerance is in effect, they do not have the right to insist that somebody else participate in it or contribute to it.

Nobody should be forced to participate in anything they don't want to do, however like in everything else, there are sometimes required tradeoffs. I suspect you are referring to the gay wedding cake. Those people chose to do business with the general public. The laws require them to not discriminate if they are to continue doing that. They have the right to chose to quit making cakes, but if they wish to continue, they have to follow the laws governing that business. If their religion forbade them from washing their hands before handling food, they would not be exempt from that either.

I am NOT referring to the gay wedding cake though that would be an example that could be used in this discussion. So are you arguing that contributing to or participating in an event the business owner would not choose to participate in is necessary in order for their to be tolerance? That a business owner must give up all his values if he chooses to go into business? Others are arguing that. I am arguing that it is NOT tolerant to force a business owner to participate in somebody else's activities just because the other person wants him to.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't want my tax dollars paying for wars. If you get to opt out of Planned Parenthood, I want to opt out of wars and weapons we don't need.

But at least we as a people have a social contract called The Constitution that authorizes the government to organize and fund a military for purposes of our common defense. Now you can certainly make an argument that many, even most wars we have been involved in did not fit the criteria of common defense and I agree, we should not be required to fund and participate in wars that are extra-constitutional activities. Certainly we should not be requird to do that without a definitive vote by those we elect to represent and speak for us. That is certainly something that should be in the national conversation with both sides of that argument given full rein to make their best arguments.

I can find not one syllable, word, or phrase in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to require the people of Muleshoe Tx to allow abortion in Muleshoe Tx. Or that would allow Muleshoe Tx to impose its moral convictions on any other society. I think the concept that one city can allow abortion and another city can prohibit it is an excellent example of the logical end result of what tolerance is.

I simply used war as an example of the fact that not all of us like where our tax dollars go. Maybe I should have said "wars of choice".

Abortion is legal, and no tax dollars are going towards funding abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood received a whopping record $542 million in federal taxpayer dollars in 2012. Would they be able to offer hundreds of thousands of affordable abortion services without that money coming in even if they say it is used for other things? Even the KKK has had its charitable wing doing good by day even as it donned white sheets for terrorist activities by night. Would you be good with $542 million in tax dollars going to the KKK to help fund its charitable activities? Note: I am NOT comparing Planned Parenthood to the KKK here so don't even go there.

It doesn't matter whether abortion is legal or not. What matters is whether tolerance and liberty allows people to live their lives according to their own moral convictions so long as they leave everybody else alone.

PP does not use any taxpayer funds for abortions since that is prohibited by law.

Here are the facts about PP services and funding;

Planned Parenthood

Only 3% of their services are "despised". Everything else is either health related or the prevention of pregnancies thereby reducing the need for abortions amongst the less fortunate.

Speaking for myself only as someone who does donate to PP I don't understand the intolerance towards providing essential services to women who don't otherwise have access to healthcare. Why wouldn't anyone support the 35% of PP funding that is used to prevent abortions and roughly equates to what PP receives in taxpayer funding.

I don't care what Planned Parenthood does or does not do. This thread is not about the virtues or lack thereof of any organization.

But if a person believe Planned Parenthood exists for immoral or unethical reasons, should that person be forced to contribute to Planned Parenthood or any other organization that he believes is involved in immoral or unethical practices?

As a taxpayer I was forced to support an immoral and unethical war.

So yes, that is part of the social contract that We the People have come together for our mutual benefit.

The social contract only works when we understand that each of us has to make compromises in order to a part of this society. My freedom to protest that unethical and immoral war wasn't infringed upon and neither is your freedom to protest against what you consider to be unethical and immoral.

But it would have been utterly ludicrous for me to demand that the supporters of that war must make allowances for me to not have to pay for it because of "tolerance" and "political correctness".

The reverse is equally true. Simply because you find something to be unethical and immoral doesn't give anyone the right to "opt out" and impose their own intolerance on society as a whole.

And let's be specific here. There is no federal funding for abortions whatsoever. No taxpayer funds are paying for abortions.

The funding that PP receives are used for healthcare only. Abortions are funded by private donations such as my own. Not a single cent of your taxpayer dollars goes towards funding any abortions performed by PP.

So no, in this instance you are NOT being forced to support an immoral and unethical practice.

 

[BULLDOG]

Doesn't a society mutually decide the rules that everyone must abide by for the society to exist? That requires that some people just aren't allowed to do everything they want. Conformity to those rules is the basis for all societies. The only way a person could have total liberty would be to live alone with no contact with others. With interaction, rules are a must.

But does everybody in the country have to abide by the same legal or implied rules? If that was the rule when slavery was legal in some states, the entire country would be expected to endorse, allow, and approve of slavery. In the 20th Century, my home town at the time would not have been able to desegregate on its own without pressure or orders from anywhere else--we did it just because it was the right thing to do even as other places thought we were terrible.

In the early years of our nation, some communities were little theocracies with rigid religious rules and punitive disciplines for the members of those societies because that is the way the people wanted it. At the same time there were communities like Deadwood with no rules or law at all and where anarchy prevailed because that is the way the people wanted it. In time, the people of both those groups chose something different--the little theocracies dissolved and much more tolerance was initiated. The people in the wide open lawless places saw that as an unpleasant way to live and adopted rules and laws to curb the violence and antisocial behavior.

It is possible for such opposing societies to co-exist in our vast nation that is among the world's very largest land masses. Why do you think it is so threatening for some when other American societies choose something different?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the case of Robertson though, people weren't content to just express their opinions. They instead organized a group to threaten A & E and threatened its advertisers and demand that Roberts not be allowed to participate in A & E programming--a proactive effort to destroy his reputation and livelihood for his opinions expressed in a totally unrelated setting and that had nothing to do with his program on A&E.

This is okay with you? What tolerance do you see expressed in this scenario? Or should tolerance not be allowed a Phil Robertson who says things you don't believe or agree with?

Tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. Nobody is forcing Roberts to accept anything, and nobody can force Robert's detractors to accept his statements. Forming groups with like minded beliefs is the major way we are able to effect any change we might want. Are you just as opposed to the anti-abortion groups that threaten politicians in an effort to put Planned Parenthood out of business? I would suggest you just aren't willing to admit, or don't comprehend, that the other side has the same rights as you.