• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge overturns Montana's ban on same-sex marriage

j-mac said:
1.)Did they break laws? I don't know
2.) I see it as a businesses right to refuse service, whether it dumb for them to do so or not.
3.) Were they arrested? Or is this a civil matter?
4.)I don't think they are "criminals", not good business people, or fervant believers in their religion, but neither of those is criminal, anymore than the zealots of radical homosexual totalitarianism are "criminal"... Misguided in their fervor maybe, but that isn't a crime brother.
Click to expand...

1.) yes they did. they broke the law and rules that apply to use all
2.) then thats your mistake, they have not right to illegally discriminate
3.) never said they were arrested
4.) again another mistake you are making. what you think doesnt matter. By definition they are factually criminals.

im glad i could help clear up the two mistakes that were confusing you

Criminal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
criminal
: involving illegal activity : relating to crime

Crime - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
crime
: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
crime


so again im asking where i demonized them?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes they did. they broke the law and rules that apply to use all
2.) then thats your mistake, they have not right to illegally discriminate
3.) never said they were arrested
4.) again another mistake you are making. what you think doesnt matter. By definition they are factually criminals.

im glad i could help clear up the two mistakes that were confusing you

Criminal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
criminal
: involving illegal activity : relating to crime

Crime - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
crime
: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
crime


so again im asking where i demonized them?
Click to expand...
1. Ok, but I'd like you to show where discrimination laws were broken.
2. See 1
3. If they broke a law, then why not?
4. Oh, my opinion doesn't matter but yours does...this is why having a rational discussion with you is impossible.

Have a nice day.
 
Keep on knocking em down! Seems like the bigots now are slowly beginning to shut their mouths! Looks like they realize they are gonna be on the wrong side of history.
 
j-mac said:
1. Ok, but I'd like you to show where discrimination laws were broken.
2. See 1
3. If they broke a law, then why not?
4. Oh, my opinion doesn't matter
5.) but yours does...
6.) this is why having a rational discussion with you is impossible.
7.)Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

1.) the court cases and law suits and legal action show that lol, look it up
how can you claimed you know action was taken against them but then claim you dont know why? thats just dishonesty
2.) yes see 1
3.) because you are not always arrested for breaking the law? are you from america? a speeding ticket is breaking the lase typically people arent arrested
4.) no it doesnt.
5.) no it doesnt either, nor did i say it did nor have i present any of my opinions to you
6.) I agree when you make the mistakes and false assumption that you do you will always run into that trouble. you will hav ethis issue every time oyu talk to a perosn who is honest and focuses on facts.

now lets reflect on the facts

they broke the law
they are criminals
they have no right to illegally discriminate

when you have anythign that proves otherwise let me know thanks

7.) i always do especially when facts are on my side like now, you do the same
 
TheNextEra said:
While you are consistent in your argument, most on the right support the fact that a business cannot turn away someone because they are black. So it is consistent that they cannot turn away someone that is gay as well. Now, you view that as wrong as forcing a business not to turn away a person because they are black, I happen to disagree.

Bottom line is that as long as there are laws that say you cannot turn away someone because they are black, don't be surprised that there are laws that say you cannot turn away someone that is gay. I suggest you get with those on the right and try to sway them to your argument then if that is a sore spot with you.
Click to expand...

I know those laws exist and once established, will be proliferated. But the point is that we can't turn to government for every little slight we think we experience. Everyone has rights, not just select groups, and you can't (or rather cannot justly) infringe upon that without cause. And the cause requires an infringement of your own rights. No matter how many people cry and scream and carry on, you are not entitled to the cake of others.

Yes, we can use government force to make it so, but by doing so we're going to open up all sorts of other paths of government force as well; and it will take them. Instead, it's our responsibility as intelligent and active consumers to use our consumer force (not government force) to control the businesses in our area. It's the method best aligned with freedom for all.
 
Ikari said:
I know those laws exist and once established, will be proliferated. But the point is that we can't turn to government for every little slight we think we experience. Everyone has rights, not just select groups, and you can't (or rather cannot justly) infringe upon that without cause. And the cause requires an infringement of your own rights. No matter how many people cry and scream and carry on, you are not entitled to the cake of others.

Yes, we can use government force to make it so, but by doing so we're going to open up all sorts of other paths of government force as well; and it will take them. Instead, it's our responsibility as intelligent and active consumers to use our consumer force (not government force) to control the businesses in our area. It's the method best aligned with freedom for all.
Click to expand...

And again, on the surface I don't disagree with you. However, unlike you, most of the right has gone lock step and marching on with the fact that buisinesses CANNOT discriminate if you are black. To apply that to gays is no different. What many on the right are hypocritical for is on one hand they say "You cannot discriminate against blacks and must serve them the cake", but then turn right around and say "You can discriminate against gays and not serve them the cake".

Can't have it both ways. Since the most on the right have agreed to this stance that government has control (i.e. government can be involved with marriage, with discrimination laws, etc), why are they now acting surprised when the government goes along a non-discrimination stance with gays.

The precedence set with BOTH the majority of the right and the left is that discrimination is wrong and public accommodation laws are valid. It is ONLY in the instance of gays that all of a sudden some on the right have a problem with those laws. Sorry, but that isn't how it works. You are quite correct in saying that the more you allow government in the more it will regulate you, but the right has been lock in step with the left in that regard for a while now. The genie isn't going back in the bottle and Pandora's box has been opened when it comes to public accommodation laws.
 
TheNextEra said:
And again, on the surface I don't disagree with you. However, unlike you, most of the right has gone lock step and marching on with the fact that buisinesses CANNOT discriminate if you are black. To apply that to gays is no different.
Click to expand...

There was a time when it was necessary, and if homosexuals had gone through a period of time of forced government slavery; then they'd have a stronger argument. But they didn't, and being gay is not the same as being black, nor has it historically encountered the same dynamics and system of government force in our Republic.

Ultimately, we should evolve to a point where all those laws can go away and that We the People are left to police ourselves and consume in intelligent manners which reflect the social norms we wish to see. The goal should be getting to a point where these laws are removed, not adding more.
 
Ikari said:
There was a time when it was necessary, and if homosexuals had gone through a period of time of forced government slavery; then they'd have a stronger argument. But they didn't, and being gay is not the same as being black, nor has it historically encountered the same dynamics and system of government force in our Republic.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't the same, but the fact gay people are who they are is just as valid. The fact they didn't go through the exact same doesn't make them any less valid for public accommodation laws than black people are now. Are you telling me the black people growing up now are the same as those in slave times? No, they are not.

Ultimately, we should evolve to a point where all those laws can go away and that We the People are left to police ourselves and consume in intelligent manners which reflect the social norms we wish to see. The goal should be getting to a point where these laws are removed, not adding more.
Click to expand...

"Should" is the key word there. The majority of people in the country do not think as you do in terms of discrimination. You will not see a candidate running on a platform of abolishing public accommodation laws. Simple isn't going to happen and is wishful thinking and not reality.

I would like a world where we all get a long and work for something better together. That is a fantasy though at this time and not reality. The reality is that public accommodation laws are here for the foreseeable future and gay people are going to be included in that and have just as much a right to it as black people do now.
 
Its awesome to see bigotry in America being kicked to the curb. A great win for freedom and equality. Let the remaining 15 states that still allow marital discrimination fall soon!
 
Ikari said:
No matter how many people cry and scream and carry on, you are not entitled to the cake of others.
.
Click to expand...

can you qoute all those people crying and screaming and carrying on and saying they are entitled to cake?
heck is there even one person that says they have a right to cake?
 
TheNextEra said:
Of course it isn't the same, but the fact gay people are who they are is just as valid. The fact they didn't go through the exact same doesn't make them any less valid for public accommodation laws than black people are now. Are you telling me the black people growing up now are the same as those in slave times? No, they are not.



"Should" is the key word there. The majority of people in the country do not think as you do in terms of discrimination. You will not see a candidate running on a platform of abolishing public accommodation laws. Simple isn't going to happen and is wishful thinking and not reality.

I would like a world where we all get a long and work for something better together. That is a fantasy though at this time and not reality. The reality is that public accommodation laws are here for the foreseeable future and gay people are going to be included in that and have just as much a right to it as black people do now.
Click to expand...

And neither have right to the cake of others. We need go be removing government force, not adding to it. I can't see legitimate use of force for someone having been refused cake. Let alone using government force to neigh bankrupt them.

There are certain refusals of service that can indeed infringe upon the rights of others, and for those specific cases then it is certainly legitimate to call forth the guns of government. But in general? No. One just doesn't have the right to the property and labor of others, not innately.
 
Ikari said:
And neither have right to the cake of others. We need go be removing government force, not adding to it. I can't see legitimate use of force for someone having been refused cake. Let alone using government force to neigh bankrupt them.

There are certain refusals of service that can indeed infringe upon the rights of others, and for those specific cases then it is certainly legitimate to call forth the guns of government. But in general? No. One just doesn't have the right to the property and labor of others, not innately.
Click to expand...

correct they dont have the right to cake, good thing that has nothing to do with this topic
 
Ikari said:
No, it's the one-way street. I'm all for same sex marriage and allowing everyone their equal rights; but that means recognizing the equal rights of everyone. You do not have the right to another person's property or labor, so you cannot justly and morally force someone to sell you a cake if they do not want to sell you their cake. It's not yours, you have no right for it, none of your rights are violated if you do not obtain the cake.

Appeal to authority makes bad arguments, so for this thread it's probably best to leave those arguments behind and just focus on the overturning of another same sex marriage ban.
Click to expand...

Yes, many libertarians think we should overturn the civil rights act, but clearly the democratic process has spoken on that subject.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, many libertarians think we should overturn the civil rights act, but clearly the democratic process has spoken on that subject.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily the civil rights act, but push towards a place where everyone's rights and liberties are acknowledged and respected; not just a few chosen groups.
 
Ikari said:
Not necessarily the civil rights act, but push towards a place where everyone's rights and liberties are acknowledged and respected; not just a few chosen groups.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're one of those people who thinks the civil rights act only protects black people?
 
Deuce said:
Oh, you're one of those people who thinks the civil rights act only protects black people?
Click to expand...

Nope, but there are application of law that infringes on the rights of some to protect the conveniences of others.

Is hyperbole the only debate skill you have? Let's try to knock up the intellectual honesty a little bit, shall we?
 
Ikari said:
Nope, but there are application of law that infringes on the rights of some to protect the conveniences of others.

Is hyperbole the only debate skill you have? Let's try to knock up the intellectual honesty a little bit, shall we?
Click to expand...

You said "chosen groups." But public discrimination laws protect everybody. Nobody can be discriminated iagainst on the basis of their race, or gender. And in many states, sexuality. So what's the difference between "I shouldn't have to sell cakes to black people" and "I shouldn't have to sell cakes to gay people?"
 
Deuce said:
You said "chosen groups." But public discrimination laws protect everybody. Nobody can be discriminated iagainst on the basis of their race, or gender. And in many states, sexuality. So what's the difference between "I shouldn't have to sell cakes to black people" and "I shouldn't have to sell cakes to gay people?"
Click to expand...

No they do not. If I had requested a hail satan cake from the bakery, do you think they'd be out of business now? They would have refused to make that special order cake, it would be against their religious practices. No, the fact is that the application of that particular law in that particular case infringed upon the property and labor rights of the business owner for the convenience of the customer to not have to walk across the street to another bakery.

These universal arguments of yours do not apply universally.
 
Ikari said:
No they do not. If I had requested a hail satan cake from the bakery, do you think they'd be out of business now? They would have refused to make that special order cake, it would be against their religious practices. No, the fact is that the application of that particular law in that particular case infringed upon the property and labor rights of the business owner for the convenience of the customer to not have to walk across the street to another bakery.

These universal arguments of yours do not apply universally.
Click to expand...


One of the bakeries in question was more than happy to make a cake for a dog wedding and a pagan solstice celebration, so I'm not sure the religious beliefs argument was genuine in the first place.

Refusing to do special orders and refusing to make a cake because the couple it's gay are different things.
 
Deuce said:
One of the bakeries in question was more than happy to make a cake for a dog wedding and a pagan solstice celebration, so I'm not sure the religious beliefs argument was genuine in the first place.

Refusing to do special orders and refusing to make a cake because the couple it's gay are different things.
Click to expand...

They refused to make a special order cake for a same sex ceremony. Which may be stupid, particularly from a business standpoint, but as it is their business and their cake and their labor that makes the cake; it should pretty much be their call. A cake is not a right.
 
Ikari said:
They refused to make a special order cake for a same sex ceremony. Which may be stupid, particularly from a business standpoint, but as it is their business and their cake and their labor that makes the cake; it should pretty much be their call. A cake is not a right.
Click to expand...

that sounds great. Just declare serving black people is a "special order."

It's my labor, so I don't have to serve black people, right?
 
Deuce said:
that sounds great. Just declare serving black people is a "special order."

It's my labor, so I don't have to serve black people, right?
Click to expand...

It's not exactly what happened here (they didn't refuse service to a gay couple, they refused to bake a special order cake for a ceremony they didn't fundamentally agree with), but seeing as the only way you seem to be able to argue headway here is to play the race card, a black man would have no innate right to your cake either. A cake is not a right.
 
Ikari said:
It's not exactly what happened here (they didn't refuse service to a gay couple, they refused to bake a special order cake for a ceremony they didn't fundamentally agree with), but seeing as the only way you seem to be able to argue headway here is to play the race card, a black man would have no innate right to your cake either. A cake is not a right.
Click to expand...

So do you or do you not support public accommodation laws protecting race and religion? Dont whine about the race card. Nobody ****ing called you racist. It's an example to demonstrate the point: people are in favor of public accommodation laws, except when those laws protect someone they dislike.

What was "special order" about this cake you speak of? And which cake was it, there has been more than one bakery with this situation.
 
Ikari said:
No they do not. If I had requested a hail satan cake from the bakery, do you think they'd be out of business now? They would have refused to make that special order cake, it would be against their religious practices. No, the fact is that the application of that particular law in that particular case infringed upon the property and labor rights of the business owner for the convenience of the customer to not have to walk across the street to another bakery.

These universal arguments of yours do not apply universally.
Click to expand...

You're mixing apples and oranges here. What the gay couple did was want a cake like they ALREADY MAKE. They weren't asking for some "different" cake that had "Hail Satan" on it.

That is what public accommodation laws are about. If I sell a hammer to a Christian, I am also required to sell a hammer to a Satanist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom