- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,668
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Public transportation and private business are 2 different things. Please avoid strawman arguments.
Different issue. If he is in the business of performing abortions, he cannot say that I will perform the service for whites, but not blacks. THAT is more akin to the situation that we are talking about.
Your argument would be like walking into a bakery and demanding that they provide you with a 20 pound salmon. They would have a right in that situation to say...uh....we are a bakery...we don't sell fish.
Understand the distinction?
No one is asking the baker to perform a gay wedding
1.)It was filed on discrimination, I never said anything counter.
2.)Please try to refrain from pedantic arguments which add nothing and are nothing more than strawman.
3.) My point is that cake is not a right
4.) and if you are discriminated against for a cake it's not the same as discrimination that actually involves rights.
5.) Cake is not a right.
It was filed on discrimination, I never said anything counter. Please try to refrain from pedantic arguments which add nothing and are nothing more than strawman. My point is that cake is not a right and if you are discriminated against for a cake it's not the same as discrimination that actually involves rights. Cake is not a right.
So we should allow them to be the moral police for one-third of a billion Americans? Yeah, and the right wing wants a police state...It's bad enough that we tell the world what to do and think. Hell if I want them to do it to their own.
Actually, I don't think you understand the issue... its not a black v white discrimination; it was an offense to the shop owners moral sensibilities, similar to abortion.
.
Government regulation is a reaction to the unwillingness of individuals and businesses to do the right thing. The government shouldn't sit idly by while people suffer just because libertarians think we should twiddle our thumbs and wait for human nature to change.
Are you claiming that serving blacks or being made to associate with blacks in public was not morally offensive to people? Because it certainly was and (disgustingly IMO) still is for some people.
You don't inspire change by force. You're no better than prostelyzing Christians that you hate.
They are not at all equivalent, even though many want to make them out to be. Unlike the issue at hand, you would find no support for being black being an "abomination". Being black is not considered a moral issue.
You don't inspire change by force.
I agree with that a good deal however do you think that the civil rights movements for blacks and women....rife with legal acrimony and civil disobedience....were ineffective? Certainly it was uncomfortable for dissenters during that time but just IMO, it probably advanced their causes by reducing the time of real change from decades to years.
You shouldn't delay the good and just thing just because it also happens to be the unpopular thing. Sometimes individuals have to be compelled to do the right thing through the force of law.
Sieg heil, mein fuhrer! Amerika Über Alles!
Sieg heil, mein fuhrer! Amerika Über Alles!
I think that the protests were effective, and that making your voices heard is always a good thing. However, I do not support the idea of forcing people to comply with the government. I would say what that's akin to, but I'd be breaking Godwin's Law. I supported the protests of people such as Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to help inspire change from the populace. That's how you change minds and hearts.
In general I agree but I also believe in anti-discrimination legislation....because it is the right thing to do. And it has worked, not perfectly, but has made a difference that has an overall positive affect on society. I dont say that about many laws that impose on the choices of others.
I believe that because when something is *the right thing to do*, it is wrong to ignore it or deny it. And denying the rights of blacks and women and gays and any other protected class based on their status alone is to me, very wrong.
Precisely the kind of substantive rebuttal I've come to expect from Libertarians.
In general I agree but I also believe in anti-discrimination legislation....because it is the right thing to do. And it has worked, not perfectly, but has made a difference that has an overall positive affect on society. I dont say that about many laws that impose on the choices of others.
I believe that because when something is *the right thing to do*, it is wrong to ignore it or deny it, no matter how inconvenient. And denying the rights of blacks and women and gays and any other protected class based on their status alone is to me, very wrong.
Edit: IMO the fact that many in this thread cannot even see that this is an issue of discriminating against a group of people when compared against those previous civil rights battles is evidence that those earlier battles succeeded...because acceptance in society has become so commonplace. Just IMO of course.
Um you are not very educated on the subject. Many people, including 'good Christians' thought it was indeed an abomination to treat blacks the same as whites. (And again, some still do)
How old are you? Do you have any memories at all of the civil rights newcasts during the 60s? The racist rhetoric..."on the news" was an embarrassment to human beings in general IMO. And I was just a child.
What is near-sighted (I would say short-sighted) is that neither of you seems to realize that blacks, for example, had to fight the same way, do the same things, to achieve their civil rights. As did women.
And people considered what they did as annoying and valueless and selfish as you do. However....*history* will be the judge.
So you have a right to someone elses business?
They are not at all equivalent, even though many want to make them out to be. Unlike the issue at hand, you would find no support for being black being an "abomination". Being black is not considered a moral issue. The Bible is reasonably explicit about homosexual acts.. (though, it make no mention of homosexual marriage, which was not an issue 1800 to 3500 years ago)... Now, many have interpreted the Bible inclusions in a variety of ways, including self serving ways. One of the mainstream interpretations, however, is that homosexuality and, by extension, homosexual marriage is morally wrong.
My point, so I am clear, is I believe the shop owner has a very defensible position. I believe the courts should have respected his moral convictions here. Again, we have an issue where civil law encroaches on moral law. (God's law).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?