Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Esmeralda]

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.

So based on the fact that the business is next to a road, the right to property and to consciousness disappears. So A gay baker would not be able to refuse a cake that says god hates gays? Or because the cake has discrimination on it, the baker is allowed to refuse the cake. And I suppose the government is to decide what can and cannot be seen as discrimination?

This gets to the heart of it. No Jewish baker should be required to make cupcakes with swastikas on them. No gay baker should have to set up a cupcake display at a Westboro Baptist church event. And a strongly pro choice florist shouldn't have to set up the flower displays for a anti-abortion convention. I would be a strong advocate for any of these people who wanted to refuse participation in and contribution to an event they find offense or unethical or immoral or just plain wrong.

And poof! There goes a free society.

I wish Phil Donahue was posting in this thread. Oops! I wonder if humor is not allowed either...

 

[Debra K]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

He's allowed to see it any way he wants. He is not allowed to break laws.

The OP expressly states that existing law is not to be used as an argument in this thread. So what the existing law is is immaterial to the OP and the concepts being argued. Thanks for understanding.

But I believe there should be laws.

The fact is, current laws are integral to this question. Our laws are formed by the majority. In a republic, majority rules. Though each person does not individually vote on each law, the process of government officials being elected by the majority vote to act for us means that the laws they make are majority rule laws. In a republic, in a free society, individuals do not get to use private 'laws' except on a purely personal level, not when they deal with the public at large.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

 

[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.

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

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?

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

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.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

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.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

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.

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

 

[sakinago]

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.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

 

[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?

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

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

 

[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?

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

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Nor does what the Supreme Court rules matter or any other court. Or any other existing law. Existing law is not to be used as argument for purposes of the discussion in this thread. Either make an argument for why abortion must be allowed and pro life values must not be enforced or whatever your position is or let it go please. And your argument must be a rationale and not what the law itself mandates. And ad hominem and/or personal insults are expressly forbidden per the thread rules for this thread.

 

[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.

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.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

Great example of hyperbole. Nothing whatsoever related to reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

Great example of hyperbole. Nothing whatsoever related to reality.

Whether or not it relates to reality is not an appropriate argument for this thread. Either agree with his argument or rebut it or ignore it please. But do not dismiss it with an insult that comes very close to violating the rules for this thread. Thanks.

 

[sakinago]

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?

He's allowed to see it any way he wants. He is not allowed to break laws.

The OP expressly states that existing law is not to be used as an argument in this thread. So what the existing law is is immaterial to the OP and the concepts being argued. Thanks for understanding.

But I believe there should be laws.

The fact is, current laws are integral to this question. Our laws are formed by the majority. In a republic, majority rules. Though each person does not individually vote on each law, the process of government officials being elected by the majority vote to act for us means that the laws they make are majority rule laws. In a republic, in a free society, individuals do not get to use private 'laws' except on a purely personal level, not when they deal with the public at large.

We are a constitutional republic, meaning we (supposably) impose negative rights on our government such as government shall make no law concerning such and such. We run into problems when we see something we do not like, and use government to shut it down. Granting government greater power to infringe on those negative rights we are also suppose to impose on it. We do this bc as humans we constantly fall into the line of thinking that the people in charge are smarter and know better than us, and that they should lay out the rules for everyone. This is when government starts becoming self serving

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

He's allowed to see it any way he wants. He is not allowed to break laws.

The OP expressly states that existing law is not to be used as an argument in this thread. So what the existing law is is immaterial to the OP and the concepts being argued. Thanks for understanding.

But I believe there should be laws.

The fact is, current laws are integral to this question. Our laws are formed by the majority. In a republic, majority rules. Though each person does not individually vote on each law, the process of government officials being elected by the majority vote to act for us means that the laws they make are majority rule laws. In a republic, in a free society, individuals do not get to use private 'laws' except on a purely personal level, not when they deal with the public at large.

We are a constitutional republic, meaning we (supposably) impose negative rights on our government such as government shall make no law concerning such and such. We run into problems when we see something we do not like, and use government to shut it down. Granting government greater power to infringe on those negative rights we are also suppose to impose on it. We do this bc as humans we constantly fall into the line of thinking that the people in charge are smarter and know better than us, and that they should lay out the rules for everyone. This is when government starts becoming self serving

And to put this into the perspective of the OP, once the government becomes self serving, more and more the government chooses who will be the beneficiary of tolerance and who will not. And once tolerance ceases to be a two way street allowing all non violent points of view to be expressed, liberty is out the window.

 

[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?

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

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Nor does what the Supreme Court rules matter or any other court. Or any other existing law. Existing law is not to be used as argument for purposes of the discussion in this thread. Either make an argument for why abortion must be allowed and pro life values must not be enforced or let it go please. And your argument must be a rationale and not what the law itself mandates.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but you can't change the rules of discussion just because it's not going the way you want. I already explained to you how society as a whole decided on rules and set up our government and laws to enforce and add or change those rules as needed. The laws we have are the result of beliefs held by the majority of our society. I contend the beliefs of that large a majority is certainly applicable to this discussion.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So you are only allowed to practice your religion inside the confines if your place of worship and home?

You can also do it while driving your car. Being a business owner, there's no reason you cannot practice your religion at your place of business. You can sing church hymns, pull our your prayer rug and pray, heck you can recite Bible verses all day long if you like.

You simply can't use religion to discriminate against your gay customers.

Nobody has suggested using religion or anything else to discriminate against anybody. Is it discrimination to choose not to participate in an activity you believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical? Or is it discriminatory to FORCE people to participate in an activity they believe is offensive, immoral, or unethical?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

As I recall the Founding Fathers set up free public libraries and schools on the understanding that in order for We the People to be able to govern ourselves we need an informed and educated electorate.

Ignorance is not "liberty", it is a form of subservience that the Church used for hundreds of years in order to maintain it's control over the people.

The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to that same thing happening in the nation that they founded for our benefit.

There is nothing in the least bit "tolerant" about allowing ignorance to be imposed on our children.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The one Billy Bob I know would have a curriculum of football and God, and the kids would all be dumber than a box of rocks. I sure am glad the one Billy Bob I know is not allowed to pick out the curriculum.

So where is it written that liberty to be dumb as a box of rocks is not to be allowed?

Oh, I think there's plenty of proof that liberty does exist in this country.