Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[BULLDOG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Meathead]

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.

I don't want to support crack-addicted, single mother prostitutes with kids with food stamps or welfare. So where does that leave us?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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."

Fallacious example.

The barber can refuse on the grounds that he is required to meet health code standards and that could infect his premises and result in him losing his business license.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

 

[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.

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.

That's strange, since your first two questions are concerning abortion, and I was responding to someone commenting on abortion.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I don't want to support crack-addicted, single mother prostitutes with kids with food stamps or welfare. So where does that leave us?

I don't know. Would you consent to removing such programs at the federal level and letting the local people vote on whether they want to support such programs? How far does your tolerance extend to what you should be forced to do, support, participate in, or contribute to?

 

[Coyote]

Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.
Up to a point. Should they be allowed to discrimminate? If people don't like desegregated schools - should they be allowed to go back to segregation because they oppose it? Where do you draw the line between their rights and the rights of an individual not to be discrimminated against?

Yes, I had a hard time with that one too just as I am having a hard time with the OP topic as stated.

I have chosen to participate in this thread and the OP appears to be "intolerant" of my contributions.

Does the OP have the right to be intolerant of my contributions? Or, does the OP have to be tolerant of my "opposing points of view" because she claimed the following in the OP topic;

"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."

And it isn't just a matter of where to draw the line but more importantly WHO gets to draw the line.

Since this OP topic is about tolerance being a "two way street" then it must allow "opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace" because for the OP to do otherwise she is "dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform".

Or to put it more succinctly is the OP demonstrating how she would regulate "tolerance" to suit herself while "dictating political correctness" in the process?

Perhaps the OP could "define" these terms so that there is no further confusion as to what they mean as far as she is concerned.

Well...the topic isn't the OP herself.

What is your view in regards to what was said in the topic rather than what you feel the OP is doing?

 

[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."

Fallacious example.

The barber can refuse on the grounds that he is required to meet health code standards and that could infect his premises and result in him losing his business license.

Bull, if all barbers refused to cut the hair of lice-infested people, who would? It is clearly a choice, unless you can find me the law.

 

[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.

That's strange, since your first two questions are concerning abortion, and I was responding to someone commenting on abortion.

The OP asked no questions concerning abortion or any other social issue. It used some examples for illustration purposes only but the thread topic is NOT about abortion. There are dozens of threads out there to discuss abortion. This thread is about liberty, tolerance and political correctness. Let's focus on the thread topic please.

 

[Meathead]

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.

I don't want to support crack-addicted, single mother prostitutes with kids with food stamps or welfare. So where does that leave us?

I don't know. Would you consent to removing such programs at the federal level and letting the local people vote on whether they want to support such programs? How far does your tolerance extend to what you should be forced to do, support, participate in, or contribute to?

I expect the participation on programs like that would be clearly minimum, especially if the results on taxes were clear and instant.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

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. IMO we certainly should not be required 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.

What tolerance is, is not the basis for law. We have set up a government that is responsible to set our laws. It is a constitutional right to be able to have an abortion. Everybody is accountable to those laws.

 

[Wolfsister77]

1-yes
2-not specific enough and leaves too much room for interpretation
3-protected how?
4-needs to be more specific
5-yes
6-yes
7-yes
8-I would need to see examples of what the local community wants and why it would be different from mandated Science or other subjects
9-depends on where they are at-workplace absolutely not, strip club or USMB FZ-they know what to expect when they go there
10-yes, most women are

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.
Up to a point. Should they be allowed to discrimminate? If people don't like desegregated schools - should they be allowed to go back to segregation because they oppose it? Where do you draw the line between their rights and the rights of an individual not to be discrimminated against?

Yes, I had a hard time with that one too just as I am having a hard time with the OP topic as stated.

I have chosen to participate in this thread and the OP appears to be "intolerant" of my contributions.

Does the OP have the right to be intolerant of my contributions? Or, does the OP have to be tolerant of my "opposing points of view" because she claimed the following in the OP topic;

"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."

And it isn't just a matter of where to draw the line but more importantly WHO gets to draw the line.

Since this OP topic is about tolerance being a "two way street" then it must allow "opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace" because for the OP to do otherwise she is "dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform".

Or to put it more succinctly is the OP demonstrating how she would regulate "tolerance" to suit herself while "dictating political correctness" in the process?

Perhaps the OP could "define" these terms so that there is no further confusion as to what they mean as far as she is concerned.

Well...the topic isn't the OP herself.

What is your view in regards to what was said in the topic rather than what you feel the OP is doing?

Others have subsequently contributed quite succinctly as to the point of the topic so I am content to let their observations stand since they have not been refuted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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."

Fallacious example.

The barber can refuse on the grounds that he is required to meet health code standards and that could infect his premises and result in him losing his business license.

Bull, if all barbers refused to cut the hair of lice-infested people, who would? It is clearly a choice, unless you can find me the law.

Ten Most Common Code Violations in Barber Shops

http://dlr.sd.gov/bdcomm/barber/barberpdfs/bbhealthrules.pdf

232 CMR 2.01

http://www.dos.ny.gov/licensing/lawbooks/barber.pdf

Code of Laws - Title 40 - Chapter 7 - Barbers And Barbering

UT Admin Code R156-11a. Barber Cosmetologist Barber Esthetician Electrologist and Nail Technician Licensing Act Rule. July 1 2015

That is just a sample. Every state will have something similar.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To disallow abortion for other people is forcing your morals and values on others. No one is forcing those who don't want them to get abortions.

Muleshoe is not forcing its moral and values on anybody else in this example. It is simply wanting to exercise its morals and values itself. Philadelphia says it should not be allowed to do that.

What do you say?

They don't have to participate in any abortions, but denying that right to others is not just an act of personal moral choice, It is denying others the ability to make that choice for themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

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."

Fallacious example.

The barber can refuse on the grounds that he is required to meet health code standards and that could infect his premises and result in him losing his business license.

Bull, if all barbers refused to cut the hair of lice-infested people, who would? It is clearly a choice, unless you can find me the law.

According to my friend who happens to be a barber, most state board regulations REQUIRE a barber or hair dresser to refuse to provide services to somebody with a contagious condition and that would include head lice. If service is started and the condition is discovered, the service must be stopped immediately and all tools, chairs, capes, etc. in the vicinity of the infected person must be thorough cleaned and disinfected. So that is not a good example of tolerance as it is a reasonable law to ensure the public safety and the right of others to not be exposed to infection against their will.

The concept of tolerance however is much more subjective and allows a person to have lice or fleas or whatever if he/she doesn't mind them, but does not allow him to force others to be exposed to that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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."

Fallacious example.

The barber can refuse on the grounds that he is required to meet health code standards and that could infect his premises and result in him losing his business license.

Bull, if all barbers refused to cut the hair of lice-infested people, who would? It is clearly a choice, unless you can find me the law.

Ten Most Common Code Violations in Barber Shops

http://dlr.sd.gov/bdcomm/barber/barberpdfs/bbhealthrules.pdf

232 CMR 2.01

http://www.dos.ny.gov/licensing/lawbooks/barber.pdf

Code of Laws - Title 40 - Chapter 7 - Barbers And Barbering

UT Admin Code R156-11a. Barber Cosmetologist Barber Esthetician Electrologist and Nail Technician Licensing Act Rule. July 1 2015

That is just a sample. Every state will have something similar.

Relate the post to the OP or do not relate it at all please.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

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

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

To disallow abortion for other people is forcing your morals and values on others. No one is forcing those who don't want them to get abortions.

Muleshoe is not forcing its moral and values on anybody else in this example. It is simply wanting to exercise its morals and values itself. Philadelphia says it should not be allowed to do that.

What do you say?

They don't have to participate in any abortions, but denying that right to others is not just an act of personal moral choice, It is denying others the ability to make that choice for themselves.

You aren't reading what is written. In this example the people of Muleshoe did make the choice for themselves and they chose to not condone or participate in or contribute to abortions in their community. The Philadelphians, however, in this example, are demanding that they must allow abortions in their community. So where is the tolerance?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

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

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

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view? Mind you the baker is doing nothing to prohibit or interfere with the event he does not with to participate in. In his opinion, attending the event in ANY capacity is the same as participating in it. He is not allowed to have that point of view? So tolerance does not extend to the baker but only to those demanding his services?