ACLU sues baker for discrimination

homeagain wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Unless, of course, you are expressing bigotry towards one of faith. That happens to be very fashionable at the moment because it serves the purpose of replacing allegience to God with allegience to the state.

You are not going to get rid of what you refer to as bigotry home. It is not possible to eradicate that anymore than it is possible to eradicate poverty. Some people are always going to have different values than you do. To label them as bigots because they do think differently than you do, and to punish them because they think differently than you do, is perhaps a greater transgression than what you perceive theirs to be.

I have been waiting for the intellectually honest argument that yes, society is attempting to use the force of government to compel Phillips to labor involuntarily because the will of the collective takes precedence, is more important, than his right to decide for whom he will labor and who he will not. That it is permissible, despite what the Constitution says, to force one to labor involuntarily in the United States and anywhere within their jurisdiction when the greater good is served by subjecting them to involuntary servitude. That Phillips is being made to labor involuntarily is not at all a point which can be disputed. He said he would not bake a wedding cake for a same sex "wedding". What society is saying is that he doesn't have the right to decide for whom he will labor, he must labor, even against his will, because society says he must. It views his actions as more objectionable than using the force of the government to compel him to labor against his will, against his conscience. That is the simple truth of the matter, isn't it?

My ALLIANCE is to a "higher" energy/essence/being.......THAT alliance goes by MANY monikers
but it is ALL THE SAME......(there in lies the difference between you and I PS......the view is
ALL encompassing, and benevolent......AGAIN, I will refer to the Gandhi quote....."your
Christians are so UNlike your Christ."......so simple....succinct.......sums it up....JMO

You presume where you should not home. I have yet to comment on how I feel about Phillips' decision, nor have I communicated what my might be in similar circumstances. What I do believe is that tolerance means more than being tolerant of what you agree with, which is something that does indeed differentiate between us. I may not agree with the KKK marching through black neighborhoods, or Nazi's marching through the Jewish sectors, but I will defend their rights to do it with all the gusto I can muster because I know the minute I fail to defend the right to live one's life according to one's own conscience simply because I disagree with them, I then place my own rights in similar peril. Something to think long and hard about home.

Brandon wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: What society is saying is that he doesn't have the right to decide for whom he will labor, he must labor, even against his will, because society says he must.

No idiot. Law code has decided that in a place of public accommodation, who he can't deny labor to, based on disability, race, religion, creed, color, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, ancestry or national origin. And you have YET to give me ANY case law that decided otherwise.

And all your knight jumps through rhetorical hoops can't change what is legal and binding.

That is the simple FACTS of the matter, isn't it?

If the geek were right, the gay dude would have been able to make the baker go shovel his driveway or clean his kitchen.

And according to the nonsense coming from you and others here, if he advertised publicly that he shoveled snow or cleaned kitchens his labor would be a public accommodation and he'd have to work for them against his will because they are homosexual, or black, or whatever invented protected class the legislatures have created over the course of the last half century.

You have never had, nor should you ever have, a right to the labor of others for your benefit Brandon. Involuntary servitude is never a just solution.

ThePetParent wrote: PrintSmith and homeagain: your stupid and you can't undo stupid!
You just ignore the fact that in our society we have laws decided by a democratic society and majority rules. We have to have some laws to protect society from unjust treatment esp in the area of race, religion, sex, gender, disability, national origin etc..
If there were no civil rights law, we would still be unenlightened and hanging people of color from branches.

I'm not so stupid that I'm unaware of the difference between "your" and "you're" PetParent. I'm not so stupid that I don't understand that we have coordinate levels of republican governance specifically to protect the individual against "mob rule" democracy as well. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the same can be said for you.

The existence of a law does not, by default, mean that it is a just law either PetParent. Perhaps that distinction, too, is lost on you.

Now then, do you wish to dispense with the name calling and debate on the merits of your position or shall we engage in more of this petty nonsense?

Just how successful are those who go to court and argue they are not guilty because the law is unjust?

PrintSmith wrote: And according to the nonsense coming from you and others here, if he advertised publicly that he shoveled snow or cleaned kitchens his labor would be a public accommodation

Wrong as usual - the statute you've been ignoring for the past dozen or so pages of this thread defines "public accommodations." You should stop making up law. You're not any good at it.

PrintSmith wrote:

ThePetParent wrote: PrintSmith and homeagain: your stupid and you can't undo stupid!
You just ignore the fact that in our society we have laws decided by a democratic society and majority rules. We have to have some laws to protect society from unjust treatment esp in the area of race, religion, sex, gender, disability, national origin etc..
If there were no civil rights law, we would still be unenlightened and hanging people of color from branches.

I'm not so stupid that I'm unaware of the difference between "your" and "you're" PetParent. I'm not so stupid that I don't understand that we have coordinate levels of republican governance specifically to protect the individual against "mob rule" democracy as well. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the same can be said for you.

The existence of a law does not, by default, mean that it is a just law either PetParent. Perhaps that distinction, too, is lost on you.

Now then, do you wish to dispense with the name calling and debate on the merits of your position or shall we engage in more of this petty nonsense?

It is a just law. You just don't get the message. I have already debated my position till I am blue in the face....nothing more to be said.

Your position is just nonsense pure and simple, you have no basis, you don't rely on facts just delusional thinking on your part...I call it adolescent rebellion to argue a pointless position.

I am right. You are wrong. End of story.

btw: It is childish to point out your and you're...big deal so what!
You must be hanging out with Queen LoBay Lady too much.
Nobody give a crap about the grammar only the subject matter.

archer wrote: Just how successful are those who go to court and argue they are not guilty because the law is unjust?

Initially? Not very. Look how long it took to overturn "separate but equal". Around 100 years give or take a few? That was a doctrine that survived longer than this current nonsense has, those laws were on the books and considered "just" laws for a long time, weren't they.

Lest you forget, the Republican Party started out as a single issue party - the abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude laws anywhere in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Seems that 160 years later there is still work to do towards achieving that goal. Some of us remember the founding principles of our party and remain true to them to this very day.

Forcing one to labor against their will, against their conscience, is, has been, and always will be an immoral act. To use unjust means to achieve just ends is never justified regardless of what the "Rules for Radicals" proclaims to the contrary.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Just how successful are those who go to court and argue they are not guilty because the law is unjust?

Initially? Not very. Look how long it took to overturn "separate but equal". Around 100 years give or take a few? That was a doctrine that survived longer than this current nonsense has, those laws were on the books and considered "just" laws for a long time, weren't they.

Lest you forget, the Republican Party started out as a single issue party - the abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude laws anywhere in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Seems that 160 years later there is still work to do towards achieving that goal. Some of us remember the founding principles of our party and remain true to them to this very day.

Forcing one to labor against their will, against their conscience, is, has been, and always will be an immoral act. To use unjust means to achieve just ends is never justified regardless of what the "Rules for Radicals" proclaims to the contrary.

Well I'm glad we have this unjust law to protect certain people from folks that think like you. End of discussion.

ThePetParent wrote: It is a just law. You just don't get the message. I have already debated my position till I am blue in the face....nothing more to be said.

Your position is just nonsense pure and simple, you have no basis, you don't rely on facts just delusional thinking on your part...I call it adolescent rebellion to argue a pointless position.

I am right. You are wrong. End of story.

btw: It is childish to point out your and you're...big deal so what!
You must be hanging out with Queen LoBay Lady too much.
Nobody give a crap about the grammar only the subject matter.

Equally childish to call someone stupid simply because they don't share your opinions, isn't it? And no, Parent, you are not right anymore than those who subjected others to involuntary servitude before you were. Your attitude may be the majority one at the moment, but might doesn't by default make right and just.

What is nonsense is to pretend that subjecting a different group to the same injustice that was previously experienced by others is somehow an acceptable cure for any ill. Didn't your parents ever tell you that two wrongs can never make a right? Or perhaps you simply choose to ignore that age old wisdom because you find it an inconvenient truth in your quest to force others into thinking and acting the way you want them to.

Do you really want to have a lawyer representing you in court who doesn't want to be there? How about having a doctor performing an operation on you? And honestly, wouldn't you rather have the baker tell you that he doesn't want to bake your cake instead of intentionally drying it out and putting a stain on your special day? You cannot control what others believe and think PetParent, that is simply not possible to do when we were endowed with free will along with all the other gifts bestowed upon us when we were created. Sure, you might be able to use the force of government to shut them up and not tell you what they are thinking, but can you then also make them labor to the best of their abilities after you have forced them to labor for you in the first place?