Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Carla_Danger]

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.

I'm sorry, the first two questions in your poll are concerning abortion, and I was responding to someone commenting on abortion.

 

[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.

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

Post meets the OP rule # 3

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

The poster requested that links be provided to the pertinent laws and a sample was provided per their request in accordance with the OP rule above.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

There are many laws concerning public health, but what does that have to do with tolerance?

 

[Coyote]

Unfortunately, the word restrictions in poll options limit our ability to include qualifiers and nuance.

The point I hoped to make is, that we all have our point of view about all those things in the poll options as well as in many other things, but can we allow others to have a different point of view without fear of harassment or bullying or organized punishment?

Ok...this seems to be primarily about free speech. You can't allow free speech for one and deny it for another. So if someone expresses their point of view and someone else disagrees - that too is free speech.

When you label that disagreement "harrassment, bullying or 'organized punishment'" - what exactly do you mean? Is one person's "bullying" another person's free speech?

Everything has consequences. A person may refuse to serve gays in his establishment - that's his right. Likewise, members of the public who disagree have the right to protest or boycott with out that being labled "harrassment, bullying or organized punishment"

To pull one example from the many but attaching no superior importance to it, a person may feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. But can he accept that others feel just as strongly that creationism and intelligent design are prevalent beliefs in our culture and should be discussed and allowed along with other science? When it comes to accreditation, who should be the authority to do that? The school systems themselves? (my vote) Or a faceless bureaucracy that may or may not be qualified to know what good education is?

If a person where arguing for different creationalal stories to be presented in a comparitive religion class - then you'd have a point on this one. But the issue here is what constitutes science? Should we be teaching a theory that martians colonized earth and that led to the human race? Should churches be forced to teach evolution in Sunday school?

The "faceless" bureaucracy takes input from educators, politicians representing constituencie, etc to create a set of standards - they represent a very broad perspective. Given the huge disparities amongst schools and performance - why would schools be the best authority?

The other thing is the main job of public schooling is to prepare young people to enter the workforce or higher education. If you have no common minimum standards then what is that going to mean for kids when they enter college? They got good grades, they think they are doing fine and know everything they need to know and suddenly - that's not the case. Their first year is full of remedial math, science, etc.

Another example but attaching no superior importance to it, can tolerance include a belief that the developing baby in the womb is a human life from conception but not declare evil those who feel it personally necessary to destroy it? Or can those who believe that the woman's choice takes precedence over any right of the baby in the womb even to the point to declaring that baby to not be a person also accept that there are those who consider that developing life to be sacred? And allow each group to reflect their convictions in the societies they develop?

I'm thinking that here...the way you frame this is already indicating a pretty strong bias by saying those who "feel it personally necessary to destroy it" and that makes it difficult to be "tolerant". Can tolerance include the belief that a woman has the right to make choices over her own body without being declared evil if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy?

To be honest - I wish there could be more respect and tolerance from both sides on this, but it's an intensely emotional (not logical) issue that impacts individual personal rights. If they develop a society where women are robbed of the choice to end and unwanted pregnancy or a society where human life is so cheap it can be ended at any point - is it reasonable to ask for tolerance for either?

When it comes to discrimination, does the right of somebody to have a product decorated in a specific way take precedence over the right of somebody to not participate in such a decoration they consider to be immoral or offensive? Why can't discrimination laws allow for protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are?

Or must everything be a one size fits all dictated by a central government.

I think when it comes to basic rights they must be even across the board - not a checkerboard of rights depending on where you live.

If discrimination laws allow for the protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are how do you handle that when who and what they are causes discrimination against another?

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Wait a second.....He's replying to a post that suggested gay marriage and lice were logically equal. YOU replied in a similar way to the same post, both of you noting that head lice is a health issue and there are health codes governing it.

Please, I don't understand: why is it okay for you to reply to that post but not for another poster to do the same?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

 

[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?

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.

Smart aleck!

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

How exactly is anybody in Muleshoe being forced to participate? They are still perfectly able to point and say nasty things if they want to, but who and how many are being forced to participate in any abortions?

 

[Genevieve]

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.

I'm sorry, the first two questions in your poll are concerning abortion, and I was responding to someone commenting on abortion.

Someone wants to steer the conversation in a particular direction. Never mind the questions asked. I'm gone.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately, the word restrictions in poll options limit our ability to include qualifiers and nuance.

The point I hoped to make is, that we all have our point of view about all those things in the poll options as well as in many other things, but can we allow others to have a different point of view without fear of harassment or bullying or organized punishment?

Ok...this seems to be primarily about free speech. You can't allow free speech for one and deny it for another. So if someone expresses their point of view and someone else disagrees - that too is free speech.

When you label that disagreement "harrassment, bullying or 'organized punishment'" - what exactly do you mean? Is one person's "bullying" another person's free speech?

Everything has consequences. A person may refuse to serve gays in his establishment - that's his right. Likewise, members of the public who disagree have the right to protest or boycott with out that being labled "harrassment, bullying or organized punishment"

To pull one example from the many but attaching no superior importance to it, a person may feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. But can he accept that others feel just as strongly that creationism and intelligent design are prevalent beliefs in our culture and should be discussed and allowed along with other science? When it comes to accreditation, who should be the authority to do that? The school systems themselves? (my vote) Or a faceless bureaucracy that may or may not be qualified to know what good education is?

If a person where arguing for different creationalal stories to be presented in a comparitive religion class - then you'd have a point on this one. But the issue here is what constitutes science? Should we be teaching a theory that martians colonized earth and that led to the human race? Should churches be forced to teach evolution in Sunday school?

The "faceless" bureaucracy takes input from educators, politicians representing constituencie, etc to create a set of standards - they represent a very broad perspective. Given the huge disparities amongst schools and performance - why would schools be the best authority?

The other thing is the main job of public schooling is to prepare young people to enter the workforce or higher education. If you have no common minimum standards then what is that going to mean for kids when they enter college? They got good grades, they think they are doing fine and know everything they need to know and suddenly - that's not the case. Their first year is full of remedial math, science, etc.

Another example but attaching no superior importance to it, can tolerance include a belief that the developing baby in the womb is a human life from conception but not declare evil those who feel it personally necessary to destroy it? Or can those who believe that the woman's choice takes precedence over any right of the baby in the womb even to the point to declaring that baby to not be a person also accept that there are those who consider that developing life to be sacred? And allow each group to reflect their convictions in the societies they develop?

I'm thinking that here...the way you frame this is already indicating a pretty strong bias by saying those who "feel it personally necessary to destroy it" and that makes it difficult to be "tolerant". Can tolerance include the belief that a woman has the right to make choices over her own body without being declared evil if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy?

To be honest - I wish there could be more respect and tolerance from both sides on this, but it's an intensely emotional (not logical) issue that impacts individual personal rights. If they develop a society where women are robbed of the choice to end and unwanted pregnancy or a society where human life is so cheap it can be ended at any point - is it reasonable to ask for tolerance for either?

When it comes to discrimination, does the right of somebody to have a product decorated in a specific way take precedence over the right of somebody to not participate in such a decoration they consider to be immoral or offensive? Why can't discrimination laws allow for protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are?

Or must everything be a one size fits all dictated by a central government.

I think when it comes to basic rights they must be even across the board - not a checkerboard of rights depending on where you live.

If discrimination laws allow for the protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are how do you handle that when who and what they are causes discrimination against another?

No it is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of what tolerance is. Most here are taking the position that anybody has the First Amendment right to say pretty much anything, but everybody else has the right to organize and punish that person for whatever they speak. That to me is not tolerance.

When it comes to a highly emotional politically charged issue like abortion, should not tolerance include allowing a woman to believe she should have the choice of her own body and she should be able to choose without fear of harrassment or punative action and also include the right of a community to believe all life is worthy of respect and care and to disallow abortion within their own group? Why is it so threatening to either group that another group sees it differently?

What gives one group superior insight into what good education is and power to assign inferior status to another group along with requirements that they do education differently? For example, if the pro-public school group was given power and were convinced government education was the only viable education, they could shut down the parochial schools and forbid home schooling despite the superior performance from the latter.

The concept of the OP for me is that nobody has a leg up on what is best for everybody else, and this nation was conceived under a concept that each person would be allowed to be who and what he/she is and live as he/she chooses short of violating rights of any others.

Who is smart enough in Washington DC or Philadelphia or anywhere else to know what is best for the people of Muleshoe Tx? Once you give a tiny central oligarchy power to dictate what sort of society everybody must have there is no more liberty. There is only dictatorship however benevolent it might be advertised.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I'm sorry, the first two questions in your poll are concerning abortion, and I was responding to someone commenting on abortion.

Someone wants to steer the conversation in a particular direction. Never mind the questions asked. I'm gone.

Sorry the discussion was not to your liking but thanks for stopping by and do have a nice day.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

Or anyone else. It's a slippery slope. If you allow people to pick and choose who they do business with, the idea of a free society is gone. Anyone can be denied service for any reason and the business owner can say it's for ethical reasons. Hypothetically, let's say they don't like fat people, that they find it spiritually unethical to be a gluten. So you deny service to fat people. Or, let's say that the cable company won't put in service to your house because you are going to watch porn, and the owner thinks porn is evil. It goes on and on and is a universally widespread issue. You cannot just say I don't like you or I don't agree with you and you offend my ethics and values, so I won't do business with you. That's so completely un-American.

 

[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.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The only activity the baker is participating in, is baking and assembling a cake.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

Or anyone else. It's a slippery slope. If you allow people to pick and choose who they do business with, the idea of a free society is gone. Anyone can be denied service for any reason and the business owner can say it's for any reason. Hypothetically, let's say they don't like fat people, that they find it spiritually unethical to be a gluten. So you deny service to fat people. Or, let's say that the cable company won't put in service to your house because you are going to watch porn, and the owner thinks porn is evil. It goes on and on and is a universally widespread issue. You cannot just say I don't like you or I don't agree with you and you offend my ethics and values, so I won't do business with you. That's so completely un-American.

All that sidesteps the issue in question. In this case it is not a case of picking and choosing who somebody does business with, though that also could be debated under the umbrella of liberty, but it is a very narrow issue of whether any person, no matter who or what he/she is, should be forced to participate in or contribute to an ACTIVITY that he/she finds offensive, unethical, and/or immoral.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The baker was opposed to setting up a cake? Sounds odd because that is normally part of a baker's duties. What other duties was he required to do that he opposed? Did they want him to be a bridesmaid, or usher?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The only activity the baker is participating in, is baking and assembling a cake.

So you are saying that the baker must be required to see that as you see it? Or does tolerance allow him to see it as he sees it which is quite different?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The only activity the baker is participating in, is baking and assembling a cake.

So you are saying that the baker must be required to see that as you see it? Or does tolerance allow him to see it as he sees it which is quite diferent?

He can see anything any way he wants. He is only required to provide the same service he would provide to anyone else.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The baker was opposed to setting up a cake? Sounds odd because that is normally part of a baker's duties. What other duties was he required to do that he opposed? Did they want him to be a bridesmaid, or usher?

Again it does not matter what the activity is. If a business owner does not wish to be associated with it either personally or as a business, should he have the right to refuse to participate in or contribute to the activity that he finds offensive or unethical or immoral?