let's do a fun political quiz again

[Yard Dog]

Whose religious freedom is being limited?

Anyone that would rather not provide a service to a homosexual couple because it goes against their beliefs. This situation might not be black and white so it in turn shouldn't be discussed that way. I don't support discrimination, but I also do not support a bakery having to close its doors because they didn't want to make a cake for someone.

A private business owner should have the right to refuse business to anyone. In a truly free market, if they are refusing business on a discriminatory standard than it will hurt their business and a competitor can arise to take that business and be successful.

You have absolutely no idea what you are saying yard dog

I know plenty about what I am saying. And, true to point, the liberals would rather attack me than have an open conversation. I have never understood this strategy. Growth comes from debate and discussion.

We were talking about marriage, and for some reason you are talking about bakeries and businesses.

Those are direct correlations. You might not agree that the word marriage has a religious connection ( I think that it probably does, and those offended are not bigots). But you can agree that the change in that law is directly hurting religious freedoms due to its ripple effects (the business closures and discrimination lawsuits).

[Yard Dog]

You having no idea what you're talking about isn't an attack, I'm trying to motivate you into not having no idea what you're talking about

But it is easy to say "you're wrong" "you're a dolt" "you have no idea what you are talking about" (attacks) vs saying "this is my opposing view point and why I think that you might be misguided...."

[8manpick]

We were talking about marriage, and for some reason you are talking about bakeries and businesses.

Those are direct correlations. You might not agree that the word marriage has a religious connection ( I think that it probably does, and those offended are not bigots). But you can agree that the change in that law is directly hurting religious freedoms due to its ripple effects (the business closures and discrimination lawsuits).

Sexual orientation is a protected class in those states irrespective of marriage.  Those businesses are not allowed to deny service based on sexual orientation.  The marriage is not the issue. 

Also, I don't believe the courts of the justice system closed any of those businesses, the free market court of public opinion may have.

[Asteriskhead]

You having no idea what you're talking about isn't an attack, I'm trying to motivate you into not having no idea what you're talking about

But it is easy to say "you're wrong" "you're a dolt" "you have no idea what you are talking about" (attacks) vs saying "this is my opposing view point and why I think that you might be misguided...."

it is because you are wrong. there is no debate here. marriage, as defined by the state is a legal term. it doesn't matter what your definition of the term is. the state has a legal responsibility to offer all citizens the same treatment under the law. if you can't parse that out, you are a mental midget.

[Winters]

I side with Bernie Sanders on 86% of issues in the 2016 Presidential election

yay

[star seed 7]

I side with Bernie Sanders on 86% of issues in the 2016 Presidential election

yay

 

[ChiComCat]

I am pretty sure that poll is sponsored by a Sanders PAC

[Yard Dog]

We were talking about marriage, and for some reason you are talking about bakeries and businesses.

Those are direct correlations. You might not agree that the word marriage has a religious connection ( I think that it probably does, and those offended are not bigots). But you can agree that the change in that law is directly hurting religious freedoms due to its ripple effects (the business closures and discrimination lawsuits).

Sexual orientation is a protected class in those states irrespective of marriage.  Those businesses are not allowed to deny service based on sexual orientation.  The marriage is not the issue. 

That is such an interesting moral grey area. I understand and agree it is great that everyone be able to do whatever they want without fear that something about them will keep them from being allowed to access to what they see as basic human rights. Id be interested to know why a homosexual couple would go to a place that doesn't agree with the practice for the cake vs another that happily supports it. I also believe that baking a cake for a customer doesn't mean you support their lifestyle, but not everyone feels that way. This current situation is a "do these things or we will take what is yours" situation which is scary. If only because of the president it can set.

I'm glad we are doing something to battle discrimination, but in your perfect dream society how long is the list of protected classes? What protection is fair? Should it be that if I decide as a private business owner I don't want to serve KU fans that I should pay any KU fan that walks through my doors and I turn away hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages?

The situation affords us little retrospective knowledge. Time will allow us proper perspective, but in the meantime I would rather protect our civil liberties than thirty years from now be like, "whoops, should have tried to stop that." So I encourage us to think about this stuff instead of just letting it happen.
 

Also, I don't believe the courts of the justice system closed any of those businesses, the free market court of public opinion may have.

Nah, they had to close because the discrimination lawsuits granted the other side of the disagreement hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[8manpick]

Your idea that discrimination is an important civil liberty is strange.  What if your religious belief is to not make cake for Muslims? Should they just go to more Muslim friendly stores?

[Rage Against the McKee]

We were talking about marriage, and for some reason you are talking about bakeries and businesses.

Those are direct correlations. You might not agree that the word marriage has a religious connection ( I think that it probably does, and those offended are not bigots). But you can agree that the change in that law is directly hurting religious freedoms due to its ripple effects (the business closures and discrimination lawsuits).

Sexual orientation is a protected class in those states irrespective of marriage.  Those businesses are not allowed to deny service based on sexual orientation.  The marriage is not the issue. 

That is such an interesting moral grey area. I understand and agree it is great that everyone be able to do whatever they want without fear that something about them will keep them from being allowed to access to what they see as basic human rights. Id be interested to know why a homosexual couple would go to a place that doesn't agree with the practice for the cake vs another that happily supports it. I also believe that baking a cake for a customer doesn't mean you support their lifestyle, but not everyone feels that way. This current situation is a "do these things or we will take what is yours" situation which is scary. If only because of the president it can set.

I'm glad we are doing something to battle discrimination, but in your perfect dream society how long is the list of protected classes? What protection is fair? Should it be that if I decide as a private business owner I don't want to serve KU fans that I should pay any KU fan that walks through my doors and I turn away hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages?

The situation affords us little retrospective knowledge. Time will allow us proper perspective, but in the meantime I would rather protect our civil liberties than thirty years from now be like, "whoops, should have tried to stop that." So I encourage us to think about this stuff instead of just letting it happen.
 

Also, I don't believe the courts of the justice system closed any of those businesses, the free market court of public opinion may have.

Nah, they had to close because the discrimination lawsuits granted the other side of the disagreement hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There is no "do these things or we will take what is yours" situation. There is a "treat people like lesser humans because of how they were born and they can choose to sue you" situation.

[star seed 7]

 

[Yard Dog]

Your idea that discrimination is an important civil liberty is strange.  What if your religious belief is to not make cake for Muslims? Should they just go to more Muslim friendly stores?

That's the idea. It sounds disturbingly close to civil rights law. I am not pro segregation by any means. That's the downside to large ideas, they often don't have an obvious or immediate implication strategy. Such is the benefit of finding a common ground and encouraging a balance. I still think that private businesses have the right to serve who they want when they want, but not framed in discrimination. This whole situation is a battle of perspective. 

There is no "do these things or we will take what is yours" situation. There is a "treat people like lesser humans because of how they were born and they can choose to sue you" situation.

How is not providing them a cake from your private business treating them like lesser humans?

[8manpick]

https://www.cah.utexas.edu/ssspot/lesson_plans/images/lesson_1_clip_image002.jpg

[CNS]

DNR most of the last 2 pages of yarddog, but saying equal = free is stupid and a stupid door to what he and his are trying to use as a stupid opening to a stupid set of stupid principals based on stupid beliefs that lead to a stupid argument that isn't even the stupid argument.

equal = equal.  It's not hard.  Even for the stupid.  Any thing else something else and not the samething. 

I could probably find a chart, or further prove it out in equation form if need be, but expecting that will do no good since the above is the simplest way to explain it and some aren't picking that up.

[Yard Dog]

DNR most of the last 2 pages of yarddog, but saying equal = free is stupid and a stupid door to what he and his are trying to use as a stupid opening to a stupid set of stupid principals based on stupid beliefs that lead to a stupid argument that isn't even the stupid argument.

equal = equal.  It's not hard.  Even for the stupid.  Any thing else something else and not the samething. 

I could probably find a chart, or further prove it out in equation form if need be, but expecting that will do no good since the above is the simplest way to explain it and some aren't picking that up.

I was attempting = to define what equal meant. Perhaps unsuccessfully. It is nice to say equal = equal, but do you mean that everyone should own and have equal things? Should everyone have the equal amount of power and wealth? Should everyone live in an equal house? Should everyone drive an equal car?

Inequality is what drives commerce and capitalism. The drive to raise one's position in life and the world. I think saying everyone should be equal is vague enough to be a dangerous concept.

But, if you define equal as being treated equal under the law of the government. I would agree whole heartedly.

[CNS]

DNR most of the last 2 pages of yarddog, but saying equal = free is stupid and a stupid door to what he and his are trying to use as a stupid opening to a stupid set of stupid principals based on stupid beliefs that lead to a stupid argument that isn't even the stupid argument.

equal = equal.  It's not hard.  Even for the stupid.  Any thing else something else and not the samething. 

I could probably find a chart, or further prove it out in equation form if need be, but expecting that will do no good since the above is the simplest way to explain it and some aren't picking that up.

I was attempting = to define what equal meant. Perhaps unsuccessfully. It is nice to say equal = equal, but do you mean that everyone should own and have equal things? Should everyone have the equal amount of power and wealth? Should everyone live in an equal house? Should everyone drive an equal car?

Inequality is what drives commerce and capitalism. The drive to raise one's position in life and the world. I think saying everyone should be equal is vague enough to be a dangerous concept.

But, if you define equal as being treated equal under the law of the government. I would agree whole heartedly.

Put it in front of any right you want and you get "equal rights".  JFC

What the eff does equal marriage rights have to do with equal wealth?  I mean, again, I would show this to you in equation form and prove it out, but it seems like I would be wasting my time.  math and all.

[star seed 7]

You don't agree with equal treatment under the law though

[Yard Dog]

DNR most of the last 2 pages of yarddog, but saying equal = free is stupid and a stupid door to what he and his are trying to use as a stupid opening to a stupid set of stupid principals based on stupid beliefs that lead to a stupid argument that isn't even the stupid argument.

equal = equal.  It's not hard.  Even for the stupid.  Any thing else something else and not the samething. 

I could probably find a chart, or further prove it out in equation form if need be, but expecting that will do no good since the above is the simplest way to explain it and some aren't picking that up.

I was attempting = to define what equal meant. Perhaps unsuccessfully. It is nice to say equal = equal, but do you mean that everyone should own and have equal things? Should everyone have the equal amount of power and wealth? Should everyone live in an equal house? Should everyone drive an equal car?

Inequality is what drives commerce and capitalism. The drive to raise one's position in life and the world. I think saying everyone should be equal is vague enough to be a dangerous concept.

But, if you define equal as being treated equal under the law of the government. I would agree whole heartedly.

Put it in front of any right you want and you get "equal rights".  JFC

What the eff does equal marriage rights have to do with equal wealth?  I mean, again, I would show this to you in equation form and prove it out, but it seems like I would be wasting my time.  math and all.

Because you said I didn't understand that equal = equal.

So you are saying that your definition of equal applies to equal marriage only?

[Yard Dog]

You don't agree with equal treatment under the law though

I do.

[CNS]

DNR most of the last 2 pages of yarddog, but saying equal = free is stupid and a stupid door to what he and his are trying to use as a stupid opening to a stupid set of stupid principals based on stupid beliefs that lead to a stupid argument that isn't even the stupid argument.

equal = equal.  It's not hard.  Even for the stupid.  Any thing else something else and not the samething. 

I could probably find a chart, or further prove it out in equation form if need be, but expecting that will do no good since the above is the simplest way to explain it and some aren't picking that up.

I was attempting = to define what equal meant. Perhaps unsuccessfully. It is nice to say equal = equal, but do you mean that everyone should own and have equal things? Should everyone have the equal amount of power and wealth? Should everyone live in an equal house? Should everyone drive an equal car?

Inequality is what drives commerce and capitalism. The drive to raise one's position in life and the world. I think saying everyone should be equal is vague enough to be a dangerous concept.

But, if you define equal as being treated equal under the law of the government. I would agree whole heartedly.

Put it in front of any right you want and you get "equal rights".  JFC

What the eff does equal marriage rights have to do with equal wealth?  I mean, again, I would show this to you in equation form and prove it out, but it seems like I would be wasting my time.  math and all.

Because you said I didn't understand that equal = equal.

So you are saying that your definition of equal applies to equal marriage only?

Nope.  All rights that the govt currently allows citizens should be allowed to all citizens.  Your example of wealth doesn't work. It's not a right. 

[star seed 7]

You don't agree with equal treatment under the law though

I do.

Like I said earlier, you have no idea what you're talking about

[Mrs. Gooch]

Id be interested to know why a homosexual couple would go to a place that doesn't agree with the practice for the cake vs another that happily supports it.

Similarly, why would a black person want to sit at a lunch counter where they are not wanted when they could clearly go to one that is happy to serve them?

[Yard Dog]

Id be interested to know why a homosexual couple would go to a place that doesn't agree with the practice for the cake vs another that happily supports it.

Similarly, why would a black person want to sit at a lunch counter where they are not wanted when they could clearly go to one that is happy to serve them?

My initial reaction is that it seems like that is a different thing all together. I do concur that the similarities are alarming. I would think any person who feels like they are unwelcome somewhere probably wouldn't want to go there, but that isn't saying that not being welcome is right. I think it is fair to say that purely as individuals not one person deserves to be blocked off from the same services as everyone else based on gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

The scary things are the extremes. It's the fear of governmental precedents really. I have nothing but love for my friends that are homosexual. I want them to be happy. I know couples that are better couples than straight couples I know.

That being said there is an interesting new topic coming to light. So, for arguments sake, what about polygamists and pedophiles who claimed to be "born that way". Now we as logical people would say "no one is born a polygamist or a pedophile, that is just some weird thing they should fix in their lives through psychiatric treatment and suppress those desires". Yet, that is the same thing people were saying about homosexuals for a long time. Will we eventually be okay with polygamy and pedophilia?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/nathan-collier-sister-wives-polygamist-cites-gay-m/?page=all

http://standupforthetruth.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/pedophilia-the-next-sexual-rights-revolution/

Both of those things to me are morally reprehensible. But, if it became more and more ok in everyday society, would I be a bigot to stand against it?

[8manpick]

Pedophilia has a victim when acted upon.

[Institutional Control]

Love those links.

There is nothing wrong with consenting adults having multiples spouses.