Page 50 of 173 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260100150 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 1723

Thread: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

  1. #491
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    This is according to your highly subjective definition of what it is to be a slave in the first place. As the government doesn't take ownership of what you produce (which is what slavery entails) but provides guidelines/laws you're never made a slave. Compliant with regulation? Sure. Slave? Nope.
    Forcing someone into service for you is slavery. Furthermore, the government has taken ownership of what everyone produces.

    Of course it does. If the owner is at no point forced to run a public accommodations business catering to the public which pays for the taxes that allow his business to get water, supplies delivered, electricity the the owner's desires are irrelevant. Again, you choose to run a public accommodations business and agree to the laws which regulate it from the get go. I've already explained this to you many a time.
    Yes, and I explained to you that a government contract that allows the government to freely violate the rights of it's people is unlawful.

    You have no right to engage in activities that harm others directly/indirectly.
    LOL! So I have no rights at all.

    Lol, all rights are government created except for the right to self defense. Property, voting, right to benefits are created. Not natural. Welcome to the real world.
    No, rights are contrived from body sovereignty.

  2. #492
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Forcing someone into service for you is slavery. Furthermore, the government has taken ownership of what everyone produces.
    Lol, more hyperbole. 1) No one is forcing you to run a business 2) Laws (which is what are used to regulate rights and create social stability) make you compliant. As the government doesn't ever take ownership of what you produce, you're at no point a slave. Are you kidding?

    Yes, and I explained to you that a government contract that allows the government to freely violate the rights of it's people is unlawful.

    LOL! So I have no rights at all.

    No, rights are contrived from body sovereignty.
    You've reduced your argument from being about an erroneous claim that freedom of association extends to non-ideologically binding transactions (it doesn't) to an erroneous claim that you have a right to societal benefits without being subject to societal laws to now an erroneous claim that this means you have no rights. Lolz. Weak sauce.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #493
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Lol, more hyperbole. 1) No one is forcing you to run a business 2) Laws (which is what are used to regulate rights and create social stability) make you compliant. As the government doesn't ever take ownership of what you produce, you're at no point a slave. Are you kidding?
    Laws that create stability by violating the rights of people is not an argument you can use to your benefit. As for the government not having ownership of what you produce, can you name one part of what you produce that is not controlled by the government? Just one part.

    You've reduced your argument from being about an erroneous claim that freedom of association extends to non-ideologically binding transactions (it doesn't) to an erroneous claim that you have a right to societal benefits without being subject to societal laws to now an erroneous claim that this means you have no rights. Lolz. Weak sauce.
    No, you said that I have no right to harm people indirectly, but since my very existence and yours for that matter harms people indirectly then your argument is basically saying we have no rights at all. How is that not obvious?

  4. #494
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    They certainly did. Go look it up. People have been quoting the Bible to support their views on those very issues. They still do. Here is an example of a rebuttal.

    Interracial Marriage | Segregationists Are Ignorant Bigots, Not Christians

    And here is an article on how slave owners used the Bible to justify slavery.

    How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

    And it isn't hard to see how the Bible was used to limit women's rights like the right to vote just by looking at many of the commonly used verses.

    What the Bible says about women's rights

    If you need more than that, then just go look up what was said by anti suffragists.

    There are already many, many Christians who argue there is no direct scripture that speaks about the legitimacy of same sex relationships and many others who go so far as to argue that Jesus affirmed a same sex couple in the story of the Roman centurion. It is not unforeseeable that someday people will view your attempts to interpret scripture as supporting your condemnation of homosexuality as the same as the historical examples of people trying to use it to justify limiting women's rights and supporting slavery and segregation.

    That is how scripture has always worked. Attitudes change and with them so do the interpretations, to the point that it becomes inconceivable to people that the Bible was ever directly quoted to justify certain actions. It is not hard to argue that the alleged Biblical condemnations of homosexual behavior need to be read in context of their times and are in reference to rape, exploitation, and sex outside of marriage. The latter of those is negated by same sex marriage.
    1) The interpretation of the centurion story is inaccurate. What you are insinuating is that if Jesus really didn't approve of homosexuality then he would have allowed the centurion's servant or "pais" (which has many different interpretations by the way) to die. There is a difference between approving of homosexuality and allowing a person to die simply because they are a homosexual. Jesus was also forgiving and merciful towards prostitutes. Would you say Jesus approved of prostitution? I wouldn't. It simply means he set the example of not hating people but hating their sin. If we hate people due to their sin, then the hate will reciprocate.
    2) I agree with you that there are some things in the Bible that popular opinion has evolved on. This doesn't necessarily mean it is all correct. The equivalent would be to say that the nation's belief of what the POTUS's role is has evolved and that is good as well. I think we could both agree that is not the case. A good example is the role of women. Nowhere in scripture I've read says that women aren't allowed to vote. Nor have I read that women are to be second class citizens. All it says is that women are to "submit" to their husbands. You have done what many do and excluded the scriptures that state what a man's role is in marriage.
    Ephesians 5:25 ESV
    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
    Colossians 3:19 ESV
    Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
    Ephesians 5:33 ESV
    However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband
    Men, in the eyes of God, are supposed to be the head of the household. That doesn't mean the dictator. It simply means the leader. Being a leader means being a servant to your subordinates ie providing for your family, being dependable, loving them even when it's not convenient, etc. Women, when it is said that they are to submit, simply means they are to follow the example set by the husband. The husband, when doing things the way he's supposed, should be someone who is to be emulated and followed. This doesn't mean he dictates how the children are raised either. It simply means that the husband and wife talk about things, compromise, and ultimately the husband will guide the direction they are to take.

    I agree that scripture can be and has been twisted to fit the needs of men. So can the Constitution. Whenever any sort of guidelines for the lives of other men are published, man will inevitably attempt to twist those guidelines to fit his cause. If we are to say the Bible should be simply thrown out as a guideline for Christians we should also say the Constitution should be thrown out as a guideline for Americans. The proper thing to do, instead, is to fight to interpret those documents as they were meant to be interpreted. Jesus set an example of love, not tolerance. Tolerating something means you let something happen without protest. Jesus never set that example. He simply set the example that He could love someone despite their sin, which is what we should all do.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #495
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Laws that create stability by violating the rights of people is not an argument you can use to your benefit. As for the government not having ownership of what you produce, can you name one part of what you produce that is not controlled by the government? Just one part.
    You have to first establish you have a right to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc even though you benefit from the taxes paid by these groups. As you don't

    No, you said that I have no right to harm people indirectly, but since my very existence and yours for that matter harms people indirectly then your argument is basically saying we have no rights at all. How is that not obvious?
    You don't. Which is why you don't have a right to own violent porn, child porn, etc.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #496
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You have to first establish you have a right to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc even though you benefit from the taxes paid by these groups. As you don't
    I never decided on my own free will to benefit from taxes at all. Therefore, you can not act on me because of it.

    You don't. Which is why you don't have a right to own violent porn, child porn, etc.
    You do realize we harm each other by existing, right? Your argument is nonsensical.

  7. #497
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The same sections of the bible say that it is an "abomination" to eat shellfish and wear clothing made of two different fibers. This is why our Constitution is not determined by biblical interpretations.
    Do me a favor man, and I do not mean this to be hateful or sarcastic. Do some more reading of Bible interpretation before you try to use it as an argument. You are seriously misrepresenting scripture when you use it in this manner.
    Many Old Testament edicts where used to separate Jewish lifestyle from pagan, Egyptian, and other cultures. That was their purpose then. To set aside and build a separate and special group of people that others would later want to emulate. Obviously, there is no need to do that now due to "gentiles" being brought under the same "tent" as Jews. Further, you are quoting parts of scripture I was not even referring to. The New Testament reaffirms some of the OT directions. It also rejects some of them. The sin that is homosexuality was reaffirmed as such in both the OT and NT. Shellfish was not.
    Finally, if you read ALL of the OT directions, many of them were direction from God of how to better take care of the earth and other human beings. For instance, not harvesting the same field for season upon season. Many, who don't understand the Bible, view this as a arbitrary rule that God made just because He wanted to impose power upon people. In fact, this is a standard practice by farmers today as they have found the repeated harvesting of the same field results in that field not being as productive. Another example, the one you use, shellfish. No one has sewage treatment plants back then. Therefore, their sewage was dumped in the ocean or waterways which eventually went into the ocean. Shellfish are scavengers. Scavengers eat whatever they can get a hold of. In this case, sewage, animal waste/carcasses, etc. God dictated Jewish people not eat these things for their health. As the world has developed, these beliefs are not something that need to be dictated. Hence, their lack of reaffirmation in the NT. However, the OT can still be used for reference when needed (like in third world countries)
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  8. #498
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Alright for final clarification: If all white businesses in a town of 5000 (with blacks making up the national average of 13% of the population) denied service to blacks in the town, you'd be alright with this just as long as there were some black businesses? What if there are none? Should the government step in?



    So businesses who don't benefit from facilities paid for by the taxes of others are fine? Yes? Like say businesses who don't use highways to ship their products or businesses who don't make use of state programs for businesses? Yes?



    Yep. You'd have no objection to this? Yes? Just as long as they're not using tax money for such policies. Yes?
    Hatuey, if it's private, it's private. If it's public, it's public. Stop beating around the bush and make your friggin point. I've demonstrated the difference between a private entity and a public entity. You know the difference. I know the difference. We simply have different interpretations of what each should be allowed to do. Now, make your point or I'm going to move along to another thread. This 20 questions crap is getting old.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  9. #499
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,437

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    If this happened to most of us, we would just go to another bakery and get a cake.

    You have to be a special kind of nuts to want to go through a trial and have these people in your life for months or years and relive the experience over and over again.

    What did it accomplish anyway?

  10. #500
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    This silliness is what happens when any group gets their knickers in a knot and the courts feel they have to settle these situations.

    If Gays feel they are being discriminated against by some baker then they can send reviews to Yelp, let their friends know about it, and so on. It is simply bad business for this baker to deny service to anyone and this is how he should learn his lesson and not through the courts. To say he MUST sell cakes to Gays, KKKers, Hells Angers, or any group of whom he personally disapproves is too great a step into the rights of this baker, whether we like his POV or not.
    I agree with you, but this is something that is for the people of Colorado to decide. They have decided that sexual orientation be added as a special class to their public accomodation law. So for Colorado, the judicial decision was correct.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •