Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 174
  1. #81
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    In a debate concerning the moral obligations of Christians to uphold their beliefs, I find it very interesting that you'd choose to make your case by way of an example that must surely scream in the face of the deepest moral obligations you have towards your fellow man as a practicing Christian. This might be your right, but in what way is it "just" (your word above) to knowingly allow someone to starve to death solely on the basis that the property belongs to you?
    This is a fantastic point and ties in greatly to the fact that all these legal battles over religion are mainly about giving Christians the ability to harm others by withholding contraception (in the case of Hobby Lobby), sexual health (when defunding Planned Parenthood), the ability for gays to conduct business or even to hold a job.

    I have yet to see an argument for religious freedom where that freedom is exercises towards something good for somebody else (that isn't a Christian).

    It may well be the liberal media's spin on the whole thing but I haven't yet seen an argument that isn't selfish (MT saying - I should be able to do what I want with my things), excusing the harm (Isbeld saying its not harmful enough to warrant all the trouble) or otherwise asserting "rights" (this is a free country, it's my business).

    There's nothing remotely Christian about the goals of these laws. This is the religious right using religion to promote their political ends. Why those ends nearly always end up harming people is baffling!

  2. #82
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    In a debate concerning the moral obligations of Christians to uphold their beliefs, I find it very interesting that you'd choose to make your case by way of an example that must surely scream in the face of the deepest moral obligations you have towards your fellow man as a practicing Christian. This might be your right, but in what way is it "just" (your word above) to knowingly allow someone to starve to death solely on the basis that the property belongs to you?
    My point is that there are instances where I could do so. Because the logic train he uses is one of logical necessary, the simple possibility disproves his point.
    I can in fact eat the last morsel of my food and watch you die of starvation "Justly". I have no moral obligation to die for you.

    Further, this is really a debate of "right" not morality (though I did use concept of justice, so I recognize that I opened the door). Either way it still stands. Even if I concede that it wouldn't be moral, we still OUGHT to protect the right. Even if I have a moral duty to die of starvation by giving you my food (so you don't die), that doesn't change the discussion in regards to rights, and me retaining the "right" to deny you my food.

    All in all it is an extreme argument, but no less so than a 100% begot down that is bent on starving minorities. No less so than the idea of a small town being capable of completely cutting off the global market from a minority group. Those are far more ridiculous IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It may well be the liberal media's spin on the whole thing but I haven't yet seen an argument that isn't selfish (MT saying - I should be able to do what I want with my things), excusing the harm (Isbeld saying its not harmful enough to warrant all the trouble) or otherwise asserting "rights" (this is a free country, it's my business).
    Funny how liberals see personal rights as selfish.
    I mean, they are "my" rights. The object is me.

    Anytime your rights, and My rights are spoken of one can always call the other side "selfish". After all, how selfish of someone else to demand MY things or the things of others, and then of course to be indignant if it is denied them.
    I love this rhetoric game you play, I see how easy it is to demonize the other side without actually contributing to the debate. GJ.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; April 1st, 2015 at 06:47 PM.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #83
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point is that there are instances where I could do so.
    Well, I understand that it's possible, but that's not what my observation is about. I agree that the right should be protected, but the fact that you agree that prudence dictates that we behave morally relative to whatever rights we have tells me that you know that choosing to behave morally trumps choosing to exercise a right.

    In the context of this discussion, I would argue that Christians are arguing, not for the right to exercise their religion by means of refusing service, but rather, for the right to behave in a way that can be rightly regarded as immoral (I defer to Jesus commanding people to love their neighbor, to treat people how they would want to be treated, to judge not lest ye be judged yourself, to not cast stones unless you are free of sin, to do good unto the least of these - to dine with thieves and prostitues, as opposed to refusing to bake a cake for them).

    I agree that people should have the right to do as they will with their businesses (with certain limitations relating to intentional harm to others), but as it relates to this specific case, I submit that Chrisitians have absolutely NO religious, ethical or moral grounds on which to stand when they treat homosexuals as bad people on the basis of what those consenting adults are compelled to do with each other.

  4. #84
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Well, I understand that it's possible, but that's not what my observation is about. I agree that the right should be protected, but the fact that you agree that prudence dictates that we behave morally relative to whatever rights we have tells me that you know that choosing to behave morally trumps choosing to exercise a right.

    In the context of this discussion, I would argue that Christians are arguing, not for the right to exercise their religion by means of refusing service, but rather, for the right to behave in a way that can be rightly regarded as immoral (I defer to Jesus commanding people to love their neighbor, to treat people how they would want to be treated, to judge not lest ye be judged yourself, to not cast stones unless you are free of sin, to do good unto the least of these - to dine with thieves and prostitues, as opposed to refusing to bake a cake for them).

    I agree that people should have the right to do as they will with their businesses (with certain limitations relating to intentional harm to others), but as it relates to this specific case, I submit that Chrisitians have absolutely NO religious, ethical or moral grounds on which to stand when they treat homosexuals as bad people on the basis of what those consenting adults are compelled to do with each other.
    Well, I appreciate the point you are making and I do feel that there is ample room to morally justify Christians not associating with some people. But I'll leave your response as the final word on the matter, as I don't feel very compelled to argue that point here. I believe the argument I am currently making would be side tracked.

    In the end, I'm not trying to preach a moral ought, or defend a right that we OUGHT to exercise in the way we have seen. I aim only to defend that the right exists, and that our laws OUGHT to protect it, even in some of it's immoral forms. Just like I would defend legalizing prostitution(or drug use), even though it is clearly immoral from my position.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  6. #85
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Funny how liberals see personal rights as selfish.
    When your rights infringes someone else's rights, it is selfish.

    I mean, they are "my" rights. The object is me.
    No, they are not. They are everyone's rights - the object is everyone. To have a law specifically to allow bigotry based on religion favors only those that are religious. It's selfish.

    Anytime your rights, and My rights are spoken of one can always call the other side "selfish". After all, how selfish of someone else to demand MY things or the things of others, and then of course to be indignant if it is denied them.
    No, you can't. I fully support religious people's rights to spend money on feeding the poor. I am against those ordinances that forbid that. If there were arguments for that from the religious right then I would be on their side. Instead, the arguments are about having the 'right' to deny business to gay people.

    I love this rhetoric game you play, I see how easy it is to demonize the other side without actually contributing to the debate. GJ.
    How is it demonizing when it is entirely true!? Has anyone on the other side of the debate yet put forward a scenario where this newfound religious 'freedom' actually does good for somebody else? No. Have you come up with an example? No. Are these laws meant to protect the bigoted bakers and bigoted photographers and pizza joints so that they are able to deny business to people based on their sexuality? Or a pharmacist to have to right to not sell contraceptives to someone? Or a business not to be forced to provide insurance that supplies free contraception to women? Yes, yes and yes.

    Stripped of all the language you don't like - the fact is that one side is arguing against harm and the other is for the right to harm. It is completely about religious intolerance, which once upon a time, was a considered a bad thing in Christian circles.

    ---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

    If this isn't some April Fool's joke, it has already begun:

    RFRA: Michiana business wouldn't cater a gay wedding
    WALKERTON, Ind. -A small-town pizza shop is saying they agree with Governor Pence and the signing of the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    The O'Connor family, who owns Memories Pizza, says they have a right to believe in their religion and protect those ideals.

    “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza.
    Their Yelp reputation is being appropriately demolished so let's hope they get driven out of business as some of the Libertarians believe is the most appropriate way to deal with the problem of discrimination.

    But what's more interesting is the following statement:

    “That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” says Kevin O'Connor.
    So this is another example of a right-wing self-hating gay Christian; I mean, who else "chooses" their sexuality? Another "win" for religion. I would prefer religions to be defeated by poor arguments rather than poor behavior but it appears that any moral high ground gained by religion is rapidly being lost.

    ---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I aim only to defend that the right exists, and that our laws OUGHT to protect it, even in some of it's immoral forms.
    Specifically what right are you defending here? And can up come up with a MORAL form of that argument? Your best efforts at any defense kinda fall flat as Dio has already pointed out.

    ---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

    UPDATE 2: Aaand they're gone - http://www.tmz.com/2015/04/01/memori...e-gay-wedding/

    Kevin O’Connor tells TMZ he's had to temporarily close his business after he told a reporter he would refuse to cater a gay wedding under Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act. O'Connor says he was immediately flooded by threatening phone calls, and social media postings.

    O'Connor wants to clear up one thing: He says he would never deny service to gay people in his restaurant. However, due to his religious beliefs, he does not believe in gay marriage ... and that's why he wouldn't service one.

    The hypocrisy is strong in this one. Somehow I don't think he'll be able to run another business again.

    ---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

    Update 3: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-weddings.html

    This guy is hilarious:

    O’Connor also said that he had never been faced with a conflict with his religious beliefs in his line of work.
    “I mean, we don’t believe in murder. I also don’t believe in abortion,” he said when asked about other events he would feel conflicted about providing services for. When asked about pizza for weddings with divorced couples, O’Connor paused.

    “You know, that’s something that I don’t have figured out in my own mind yet,” he said. “Because I’m divorced. So that’s something I don’t have figured out.”
    This had better be an April Fool's joke - nobody can be this stupid.

  7. #86
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    @Isbeld: Here's a another rebuttal to your "The person must be substantially burdened. " argument - http://reverbpress.com/news/us/glenn...iminate-video/.

    Glenn Beck argued the same point and he follows my argument that you have to prove your faith. However, this does mean that the government's role is now to determine whether someone is really bigoted or following their religion faithfully enough:

    So it’s a bit disingenuous for Beck to push for a government-ran process which would parse the difference between religious bigotry and just plain old bigotry, especially when “plain old bigotry” just might come from living in a culture which largely embraces the Christian religion-fueled mindset that condemns homosexuals on a very regular and brazen basis.Furthermore, Beck is advocating for the government to decide who is “actually” religious and who is not. How would the government, on any level, be able to authenticate a person’s religious belief? One can just imagine the huge can of worms this would open up if this ever came to pass. For starters, the creation of a theoretical “Religious Investigation Service” wing of the federal government would be ripe for scandals and bribery. And it’s an idea which would be embraced by… ISIS or Al Qaeda, since inherently the idea would require the sanctioning of religion by the government. Thankfully, unless the Christian Theocrats ever succeed in shredding the U.S. Constitution, this harebrained idea will never come to fruition.




  8. #87
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I will assume everyone knows what is being referred to but if not, here's the story

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...s-freedom-bill

    It is assumed that this law is set to address the kind of issue that arose when a bakery that is owned by Christians refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding. And according to the law, if such a situation were to arise in Indiana, the owners of a bakery would be allowed to discriminate in such a fashion.

    So this law seems to make illegal behavior legal if the behavior done out of religious belief. So if a bakery refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding out of religious beliefs, that's fine. But if the exact same thing is done out of anti-gay attitude that is not borne of religious conviction, the offenders aren't protected by the law.

    So basically this law seems to give religious belief an advantage over non-religious beliefs and should not stand on that basis.
    Mican, first, discrimination is not illegal behavior. If you're claiming that it is, please show which law makes individual discrimination against others illegal.

    second, if I were to go to a gay baker and ask them to make me the cake that said the following "homosexuality is a sin and all fags should burn in hell" why should the bakers be individually forced to make that sort of cake?

    Finally, please show where in the law, particular where in the COTUS, does it say that when an individual opens a businesst that they lose their individual rights.

  9. #88
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,312
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't think that's true. I work for a small company and the owner's personal assets are separate from the company's. If the company was sued out of existence, the owner's own bank account would not be effected.
    That means he has created a separate legal entity, some kind of corporation. He is no longer a sole proprietorship.

    But one can be a sole proprietor and hire employees. I just want to be sure I understand your objection, is it the form of business that is relevant or the fact that one has hired employees?

    Regardless, as long as we confine ourselves to the sole proprietorship, do you have an objection?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The difference is one does not have a right to succeed in one's business endeavor so people making it difficult, or even impossible, for a business to succeed is not violating one's right.
    Nor does one have the right to demand a cake from a specific baker. We could argue that someone has the right to food (though there are some very complicated moral problems with positive rights of this sort), but certainly we aren't saying that individual X has a right to force individual Y to perform labor for him.

    No one is being shut out of a market here, there are numerous bakers or carpenters or whatever, many of whom would be happy to jump at the chance to capture the extra profit from getting additional work.

    What you are arguing for is some kind of exception to the rule against forced association, not a blanket removal of it. Because we might have a compelling societal interest in preventing someone from starving to death or not being able to find medical treatment (and I should point out that this didn't even happen in the Jim Crow south where discrimination was the law) does not mean we have a compelling interest in all market transactions made everywhere.

    Likewise, we recognize that yelling fire in a crowded theater is an exception to free speech. That doesn't mean that we then say that any non-truth uttered is against the law, we recognize a limit to the principle.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The ant had better access to the grain because he was more productive. So he earned his greater access. But what if the ant and the grasshopper worked equally as hard and were the same in every way except for the fact that one was an ant and the other was a grasshopper?
    Ok, but then it looks like we largely agree on the point I was making in my response, which was that people have no real intrinsic claim on the fruits of the earth. The claim the grasshopper has is based on the outcome of his labor, not on his status as an insect (to stretch the analogy).



    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It isn't an economic decision to do this but a moral one.
    Well you absolutely missed the point I was making, but that doesn't really matter since I was making it to Mican, who understood it. More importantly, I agree that this is a moral question. But its status as a moral question doesn't necessarily make it a legal question right?


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The federal law never came to pass anyway
    Wait, what? Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Right which is hardly 'virtually identical'. It's a huge step and counter to what Pence lied about.
    Except, if you had read my actual response you would notice that those exact protections are also provided for under federal law, right? That was the whole point of my quoting the WSJ article.

    Because one phrase might be different, even though the legal protections are identical would be a pretty hollow point for you to have made, so certainly that isn't what you meant.

    If you are going to claim that the federal law provides different protections than the Indiana version, that would need some support.




    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    In that the market is owned in common by all of us, so we decide together on the rules.
    The market is a process, not a thing. No one "owns" the market anymore than anyone owns the water cycle. You might own water that is part of the cycle, but you don't own the cycle itself.



    But lets operate under your moral premise for a second. Both buying and selling are apparently privileges, granted by the state for its inscrutable reasons.

    Presumably, you would argue that not selling to someone who is black, because they are black is and should be a crime.

    Ok, then should not buying from someone who is black, because they are black be a crime? If not, why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    You forgot your little challenge thingy:
    Thats because I wasn't formally challenging you yet.

    Its weird how you read the part you quoted, but not the exact next sentence.

    From your link:

    The remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas.

    So please support or retract that Sodomy laws are still in effect today.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. Likes Ibelsd liked this post
  11. #89
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Is a wedding cake even part of the religious ceremony? It's part of the reception, no? Not like the breaking of the glass at a jewish ceremony. The baker doesn't even have to be there, right?

    Seems like this has nothing to do with religious practice but everything to do with denying access to service.
    Well, I guess that's your point of view. Obviously, to some people, providing a service to such an event is immoral. I am not arguing the merits of their religious beliefs. I am not a bible scholar. Hell, I'm not even Christian. So, I cannot intelligently argue their point of view. All I can state is that I will refuse to support efforts that force a business owner to make choices between religion and livelihood.

    ---------- Post added at 07:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    @Isbeld: Here's a another rebuttal to your "The person must be substantially burdened. " argument - http://reverbpress.com/news/us/glenn...iminate-video/.

    Glenn Beck argued the same point and he follows my argument that you have to prove your faith. However, this does mean that the government's role is now to determine whether someone is really bigoted or following their religion faithfully enough:




    Your cut and paste rebuttal is shallow. Things like, what is a legitimate religious belief and parsing legislation or normal functions for a court room. Whether a business' discrimination substantially burdens someone will be met with a legal definition based on some court and appeals process. This is no different than any other new legislation that will require some case law to make it more well-defined. The second amendment of the Constitution is still being defined in courtrooms and that legislation is 200+ years old.

    ---------- Post added at 07:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Of course not but they also shouldn't be enforcing their beliefs on others. Besides, as I pointed out Christians should be tolerant of others anyway and that should more moral standing than being "free" to be bigots. And if they were consistent in applying their own beliefs then they should do all manner of other cakes that violate their beliefs - eg ones for second marriages. If they can pick and choose whatever their religious doctrines tell them then clearly it is personal bigotry and not religion that is the driving factor.
    You keep saying that Christians shouldn't be forcing/enforcing their beliefs on others. You continually fail to explain how not selling a product to someone is forcing their belief. Customer A walks into a bakery voluntarily. Customer A asks for a cake for a gay wedding. Vendor B denies customer A his business based on vendor B's beliefs regarding gay weddings. Has customer A been forced to cancel his wedding? Has customer A been forced to be Christian? Forced to go straight? Nothing here has been forced on either party. Both were freely involved in a business discussion and the two could not consent to a business arrangement. No force has been involved thus far. That is until one of two things happen 1) a law forces vendor B to sell to customer A. 2) a law prevents customer A from doing business with vendor B. The law in question does not enforce either scenario. So, nothing has been forced on anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No one is saying that people suspend their morals but if they are a business then that's a different matter b
    So, you're saying, if you own a business, then you must suspend your morals. Businesses are owned by individuals. Forcing a business is synonymous with forcing an individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    why?
    Because calling names isn't a rebuttal.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    They're both examples of "religious" morality.
    One is a sufficient burden....

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I am not excluding Christians, I am excluding Christian reasoning - ie arguments that only apply if you are part of a specific religion with specific beliefs that apply to no other people than your fellow believers.
    What is the difference here? How do you exclude Christian reasoning without excluding Christians? This is just distinguishing with a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Ah, but that's the point - they won't win because the Indiana law was written such that they could use such reasons to justify their bigotry.
    But its not the point. If their bigotry causes actual harm, then it is illegal. And we both agreed your charges of how it will be used are completely speculative.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I do agree that it is speculation but given Hobby Lobby's win the pendulum is swinging way too far towards the religious being able to dictate society. That is wrong IMHO.
    Isn't this my argument? The back and forth legislation between Christians and the progressive left is out of control. So, now the left is clamoring for more legislation. This will trigger more legislation from Christians. How about we stop with all the laws and just let people sort it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Neither - government represents the people who chose them. It is up to people to vote in politicians they trust to execute their demands. Clearly, the progressives have lost out in Indiana because they didn't vote. I certainly wouldn't heed the complaints of a gay person if they didn't bother voting.
    Ok, but this wasn't your argument earlier when you claimed the government is the people. So, you have rebutted your earlier claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Murder was brought up as a rebuttal to your claim that we cannot or should not legislate morality.
    Except I never argued that. Please provide me the quote where I make this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Of course they're not the same level of "crime" but they are certainly classes of undesirable behavior. Certainly social shaming and outcry doesn't work with these people so we must use the law.
    It does not work absolutely? So, if fines don't work and people continue to discriminate, then you'd support jail? And if that does not work, then you'd support execution? And if that does not stamp out all discrimination you'd support....???

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Firstly, I'm not telling them how to run their business. I am demanding that they do not discriminate based on their own personal cherry picking of their own religion, one that also demands tolerance. If they had first refused to serve murderers or rapists then they might have a small inkling of a point. But they don't.
    I am guessing the same bakers and florists who refuse to service gay weddings would also refuse to serve murder parties and rape conventions. So, I am not sure how cherry-picked their moral views are as it relates to their business. Of course, you can throw all the unsubstantiated accusations out there you want. How do you place these two claims one after the to other? 1) I'm not telling them... 2) I am demanding that they....


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    The people of Indiana got what they deserved. Let's see what happens in the next election cycle, assuming they care or remember.
    I don't even know what this means.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Right wing Christians play the victim card a lot recently - strangely being prevented from attacking others is somehow seen as an attack on then

    IIt's also a false narrative they are being attacked. Removing Religious privileges they no longer deserve or should have been given anyway is not an attack.
    Actually, I kind of agree with your first statement here about the victim card. Christians, the gay community, and the progressive left have all been a bunch of crying victims lately. Stop the cycle and stop crying for more legislation. It is funny how you accuse the Christians of playing the victim card before going on your own victimhood diatribe. Whaaaaa... Religious privilege.... whaaaa.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  12. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  13. #90
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That means he has created a separate legal entity, some kind of corporation. He is no longer a sole proprietorship.

    But one can be a sole proprietor and hire employees.
    When I was freelancing I would occasionally hire an assistant and pay him a portion of what I was getting paid.

    But once you have a storefront and/or have employees on payroll, I'm pretty sure you are required to set up a separate business.

    But let me ask, the primary real-world scenario I'm aware of is a cake shop that would not sell to gay weddings. Assuming it actually is a business with a separate business account separate from the owner's personal assets, do you concede that in that situation it is justifiable to force the business to service all customers. If not, then the differentiation between the two types of businesses is an irrelevant point.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Nor does one have the right to demand a cake from a specific baker. We could argue that someone has the right to food (though there are some very complicated moral problems with positive rights of this sort), but certainly we aren't saying that individual X has a right to force individual Y to perform labor for him.
    The individual cannot but the rules of commerce can demand that is one is going to run a business, they must serve all customers who seek to purchase their wares barring certain exceptions (and the sexual orientation of the clients is not one of those exceptions).

    Remember that an individual can always opt to not run a business or shut down one's business if they don't want to follow the rules of running a business.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No one is being shut out of a market here, there are numerous bakers or carpenters or whatever, many of whom would be happy to jump at the chance to capture the extra profit from getting additional work.
    It is not necessarily true that one is not shut out of the local market if just one shop refuses to sell to them. Some towns are small enough to support only one cake shop so if that cake shop will not see to a certain person the person does not have access to shop-produced cakes within town.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What you are arguing for is some kind of exception to the rule against forced association, not a blanket removal of it.
    You are sneaking in the premise that this violates the rules of forced association. That position needs to be supported before it is an accepted premise. But I will address it with two scenarios.

    SCENARIO 1.
    A gay man arrives at Joe's door and asks to come into his house and have a conversation. Joe says the man is not welcome and closes the door. The government rules that Joe must let the man into his house and have a conversation with him. That would of course be forced association

    SCENARIO 2
    Joe works at a coffee shop. A gay man comes in to buy coffee. Joe decides that he doesn't want to serve the man. The boss tells him he must do so. Joe asserts his right to refuse association and the boss agrees that Joe does not have to serve the man and instead gets someone else to serve that man. And then the boss fires Joe. That is not a violation of Joe's right to refuse association for Joe, as an individual, was allowed to refuse association and the fact that he suffered that particular consequence for asserting his rights does not change the fact that he was allowed to assert his right.

    The cake shop scenario is closer to scenario 2 than scenario 1. The owner DOES have the right to refuse association. But, like Joe, he does not have the right to avoid the consequences of doing so.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because we might have a compelling societal interest in preventing someone from starving to death or not being able to find medical treatment (and I should point out that this didn't even happen in the Jim Crow south where discrimination was the law) does not mean we have a compelling interest in all market transactions made everywhere.
    If we have a compelling interest in equal access to the marketplace, which is the means of distributing goods in our society, then we have an interest in making sure people can't be denied access to sections of the market based on certain characteristics.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, but then it looks like we largely agree on the point I was making in my response, which was that people have no real intrinsic claim on the fruits of the earth. The claim the grasshopper has is based on the outcome of his labor, not on his status as an insect (to stretch the analogy).
    I argue that everyone has an intrinsic equal claim to the fruits of the earth. I forward another scenario.

    Two men end up on an island where there is enough food for both of them to survive (plants and animals). Assuming that we hold that both men have equal rights then they intrinsically have an equal right to the food on the island and barring any factors that might give one a reason to claim that he morally deserves more than the other (like one of them works harder at harvesting the food), whatever method they use in distributing the fruits of the island should provide them with equal portions of the fruits.

    In our society we use the fruits of the earth and the land to create the items that go on the market as well as the physical marketplaces themselves and I do hold that, barring all other considerations, every single human being has an equal right to access those items. But of course there are many, many considerations justifying unequal access to the items on the market. For example, a man who works harder than others deserves greater access to the produced items and we have a good system to help make this happen - the distribution of money. That hard-working man will likely earn more money than the lazy and therefore have greater access to the items of the market. Fair enough - he earned greater access. And this goes for those who are smarter, more inventive, more talented than others as well. So in all of those situations it is perfectly justifiable to grant such people greater access to the marketable items.

    But the white, the religious, and the heterosexual do not deserve greater access to the marketable items than those who are not white, religious, nor straight. So the marketable items that sit on store shelves should be equally access to the straights and the gays. And denying gays equal access by either paying them less or closing certain sections of the markets to them denies them their intrinsic right to have equal access to the fruits of the earth.

    ---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Mican, first, discrimination is not illegal behavior. If you're claiming that it is, please show which law makes individual discrimination against others illegal.
    This debate is about businesses discrimination, not individuals. And I can certain support that businesses can't discriminate.

    "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    second, if I were to go to a gay baker and ask them to make me the cake that said the following "homosexuality is a sin and all fags should burn in hell" why should the bakers be individually forced to make that sort of cake?
    Straw-man argument. I do not argue that he he should. And the issue is not what is written on the cake but the sexual orientation of the customers. If a gay baker refused to make you a cake because you are straight or because you were marrying someone of the opposite gender, it would be as much a violation as if it was a straight baker refusing to service a gay



    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Finally, please show where in the law, particular where in the COTUS, does it say that when an individual opens a businesst that they lose their individual rights.
    Straw-man argument. I never argued that people lose their individual rights when they open a business.
    Last edited by mican333; April 2nd, 2015 at 11:25 AM.

  14. #91
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This debate is about businesses discrimination, not individuals. And I can certain support that businesses can't discriminate.
    Do individuals magically stop being individuals when they start a business. If I am an individual at 12:01pm and start a business at 12:02pm, do I stop being an individual at that time? Or is it only when I am actually working at my place of business am I not an individual? So, if I am asked to make a cake and I close shop and clock out, can I tell them no then?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Straw-man argument. I do not argue that he he should. And the issue is not what is written on the cake but the sexual orientation of the customers. If a gay baker refused to make you a cake because you are straight or because you were marrying someone of the opposite gender, it would be as much a violation as if it was a straight baker refusing to service a gay
    Why is it ok to discriminate against what someone wants written on the cake and yet not ok to discriminate the purpose for which the cake serves? Can you provide some proof as to where it states its ok to discriminate against what is asked to be written on a cake?




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Straw-man argument. I never argued that people lose their individual rights when they open a business.
    But that is exactly what you are suggesting. If I am sitting at home and a gay couple asks me to bake them a cake, I can tell them to screw off because homosexuality sickens me....but, if I open a business, I am forced to bake them a cake if they want it? So, I lose the right to tell them no. Seems like a loss of individual rights to me. Please explain how this is not.

  15. #92
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    As there might be several levels of back and forth I decided to only color my new responses. Everything else is what was said by you or me prior.


    MT: 1) Individually owned businesses rely on the rights and labor of the Individual to exist at all.
    - For example a cake maker, who owns and operates cake making business. if he refused to personally make X cake, that becomes the same as the business refusing.[/color]

    I agree that it relies on one's labor. I don't think one's rights is a factor. A person with no rights can still bake and sell a cake. But I'm not sure my objection is relevant so I'll generally agree with this for now.

    2) Thus there is no distinction unless it is agreed too in writing by the person establishing it.
    So, when I walk out side, having signed no paperwork and being to do "business" (IE transactions of goods and services) I have given up none of my rights by doing so. So, too the cake maker, by simply posting a sign or having his tools in another building than his personal residence, doesn't give up his personal right to associate as he sees fit, or to provide the goods they see fit.

    I assume at this point you have purchased a storefront in the business district of your town and have hired employees and put them on payroll. I'm pretty sure at this point you have created a separate business entity. So I will stop you here and disagree with this point.

    But I should say that we seem to be discussing "is" and not "ought" here. So I'm saying by the current rules as I understand them (and I talked with my boss who is runs a sole proprietor company about this topic) in that situation you would be establishing a separate business to have a storefront and employees on payroll. As fas a "ought" goes, I argue that once you are producing marketable goods and selling them for a profit, you "ought" to be subject to the rules of the marketplace and the rules of the marketplace "ought" to allow every race, religion, and sexual orientation equal access to produced goods.






    Mican: 1. Tying weights to someone and throwing them in a pool puts them in an environment where it is impossible for them to survive.[/quote]

    MT: #1 does in fact do what it says. However it does so in a way that is specifically a violation of your personal rights, and exceeds my own personal rights. For example, I have no right to your person, so simply tying weights on you is a violation of your rights and an excess of my own. I could however kill you through starvation by denying you my own food without violating your personal rights, because I have a right to MY property, and you have no claim on it. So #1 is an oversimplification and ignores relevant factors to my rights. A more accurate comparison would say that I have a right to put chains on you, and hold your head under water, say as an executioner.

    I agree that there can be situations where the violation of one's rights is warranted. For instance, when there's an issue of competing rights and we have to violate one to preserve a greater right or a situation where it is entirely justifiable to deny one of his right, such as a legal sanction. But this argument does not address those "however". The only issue right now is whether it's correct. And you concede that it's correct so it stands.

    Mican:
    2. So doing what's above denies one the ability to survive
    3. So denying one that ability to survive constitutes violating their right to live.


    MT: So assuming #1 & 2 ARE true, (see my points about it's limitations) 3 does not necessarily follow form 1 & 2. As noted, #1 is oversimplified, and confuses my rights and your rights. Me using my personal rights, is not a violation of your
    own and there can be instances where me justly and correctly operating within my rights could cause your death, without violating your right to life, or your rights in anyway.


    I disagree. An execution is violating one's right to life - it's just a legally justifiable denial just as incarceration is a denial of one's right to liberty.

    And my points do not address competing rights at all - that issue is essentially irrelevant to the points themselves (although can be forwarded as a rebuttal to the conclusion). Just because it's more important to preserve your right to X than my right to Y and we are justified in favoring your rights does not mean that my right to Y was not violated.

    So I hold that point 3 stands as accurate.

    As points 4 and 5 logically follows 3, they likewise hold up
    .


    4. So denying one the ability to do X, denies one the right to do X.
    5. So denying one the ability to live in a certain area denies them the right to live in a certain area.


    To be clear, I do not read your objections as saying these points are wrong but that they fail to factor in the issue that there might be greater concerns than what these points raise so it's not so much a "no" but a "yeah, but". And I do not say that I these points can't be overcome by a "yeah, but". But a "yeah, but" is still a "yeah" so I'd say if you find the points technically accurate then concede point five and make a rebuttal that while it's technically accurate it does not factor in whatever argument you choose to make - which appears to be that there are greater rights issues at stake which override this point.

    ---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Do individuals magically stop being individuals when they start a business. If I am an individual at 12:01pm and start a business at 12:02pm, do I stop being an individual at that time? Or is it only when I am actually working at my place of business am I not an individual?
    At all times you are an individual. And what you are not is a business. The individual and the business are two separate things. And likewise it is the business, not the individual, who will get sued if discrimination occurs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    So, if I am asked to make a cake and I close shop and clock out, can I tell them no then?
    It depends why are you closing shop. If it's because it's after store hours, fine. If your are doing it because you don't want to serve the clients out of discrimination, you are breaking the law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Why is it ok to discriminate against what someone wants written on the cake and yet not ok to discriminate the purpose for which the cake serves? Can you provide some proof as to where it states its ok to discriminate against what is asked to be written on a cake?
    That's a question, not a rebuttal. If you don't understand when one has violated the law regarding discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, then do your own research.





    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    If I am sitting at home and a gay couple asks me to bake them a cake, I can tell them to screw off because homosexuality sickens me....but, if I open a business, I am forced to bake them a cake if they want it? So, I lose the right to tell them no. Seems like a loss of individual rights to me. Please explain how this is not.
    If you open a business, you, as an individual, are not forced to bake cakes for gay weddings. Sure, if a gay couples asks you to bake a cake and you say no, it may eventually lead to your business having to shut down but the fact remains that you, as an individual, do not have to make them a cake. And it's certainly not a violation of your rights to have your business shut down as you do not have the right to keep your business open.

    What if there were no anti-discrimination laws but when the people of your town found out that you discriminated against a gay couple, everyone refused to shop at your store and that drove you out of business? Were your rights violated then? Of course not. You exercised your individual rights and then paid the consequences for it.

    So yes, you absolutely have the right to not make a cake for a gay couple as an individual or a business owner. But you do not have the right to not suffer whatever consequences your discrimination may bring.
    Last edited by Squatch347; April 6th, 2015 at 04:53 AM.

  16. #93
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Your cut and paste rebuttal is shallow. Things like, what is a legitimate religious belief and parsing legislation or normal functions for a court room. Whether a business' discrimination substantially burdens someone will be met with a legal definition based on some court and appeals process. This is no different than any other new legislation that will require some case law to make it more well-defined. The second amendment of the Constitution is still being defined in courtrooms and that legislation is 200+ years old.
    OK then. You're fine with the government determining how faithful someone is to their religion. In that case, unless these bigots also discriminate against divorcees or murderers or atheists or people of other religions then that person is cherry picking the instructions of their own religion. Therefore they are actually being bigots using religion as an excuse.

    You keep saying that Christians shouldn't be forcing/enforcing their beliefs on others. You continually fail to explain how not selling a product to someone is forcing their belief. Customer A walks into a bakery voluntarily. Customer A asks for a cake for a gay wedding. Vendor B denies customer A his business based on vendor B's beliefs regarding gay weddings. Has customer A been forced to cancel his wedding? Has customer A been forced to be Christian? Forced to go straight? Nothing here has been forced on either party. Both were freely involved in a business discussion and the two could not consent to a business arrangement. No force has been involved thus far. That is until one of two things happen 1) a law forces vendor B to sell to customer A. 2) a law prevents customer A from doing business with vendor B. The law in question does not enforce either scenario. So, nothing has been forced on anyone else.
    The customer has been forced to participate in that religion's bigoted practices by being denied the cake. Just as slaves had no choice but to have slavery enforced upon them, so it in this situation. The only difference between getting a cake is whether the baker knows it's for a gay wedding or not. Whether Chris and Chris is man or woman or both should be irrelevant to that business transaction.

    So, you're saying, if you own a business, then you must suspend your morals. Businesses are owned by individuals. Forcing a business is synonymous with forcing an individual.
    The baker (or pizza maker in yesterday's debacle with Memories Pizza) wasn't consistent in their practices. They will serve adulterers and murders and since Christianity also preaches tolerances, as evidenced by all the other Christians that have no such issues, it isn't about morality at all but personal animus and bigotry.

    What is the difference here? How do you exclude Christian reasoning without excluding Christians? This is just distinguishing with a difference.
    Simple. Christians need to find other reasons that aren't based on their faiths and beliefs.

    But its not the point. If their bigotry causes actual harm, then it is illegal. And we both agreed your charges of how it will be used are completely speculative.
    Not speculative any longer given the Pizza business yesterday. And harm is caused - emotional, possibly financial and certainly time is lost.

    Isn't this my argument? The back and forth legislation between Christians and the progressive left is out of control. So, now the left is clamoring for more legislation. This will trigger more legislation from Christians. How about we stop with all the laws and just let people sort it out.
    No, the left is asking the law be struck but if not then fixed. And it isn't just been individuals - Hobby Lobby is a large company who has forced hundreds if not thousands of women to find alternative methods for contraception.


    Ok, but this wasn't your argument earlier when you claimed the government is the people. So, you have rebutted your earlier claim.
    Except I never argued that. Please provide me the quote where I make this claim.
    I've always been consistent that people get the government they deserve. I have never wavered from that view - it's why people need to vote.

    It does not work absolutely? So, if fines don't work and people continue to discriminate, then you'd support jail? And if that does not work, then you'd support execution? And if that does not stamp out all discrimination you'd support....???
    I'm happy with fining the business out of existence but I prefer they behave as decent human beings.

    I am guessing the same bakers and florists who refuse to service gay weddings would also refuse to serve murder parties and rape conventions.
    Except they never have. Nor have they refused to serve divorcees or atheists or Satanists. Nor have people refused divorcees to remarry or murderers or rapists. Religion is a poor moral framework - it's random and arbitrarily applied.

    So, I am not sure how cherry-picked their moral views are as it relates to their business. Of course, you can throw all the unsubstantiated accusations out there you want. How do you place these two claims one after the to other? 1) I'm not telling them... 2) I am demanding that they....
    See the pizza guy or any number of interviews with the other side when asked a similar question. It's completely hypocritical and counter to the tolerance that (luckily for us) most Christians now believe. You are literally defending the people whose only goal is to harm others.


    Actually, I kind of agree with your first statement here about the victim card. Christians, the gay community, and the progressive left have all been a bunch of crying victims lately. Stop the cycle and stop crying for more legislation. It is funny how you accuse the Christians of playing the victim card before going on your own victimhood diatribe. Whaaaaa... Religious privilege.... whaaaa.
    Progressives aren't victims in this case. What are you talking about? I'm not gay and know zero gay people. This affects my life zilch.

    I am in this because I am an atheist and I don't want religion anywhere near our society's laws. It's not being a victim of you want your country ruled by reason and not fables. Inconsistently applied and randomly cherry picked morality has no reason to exist in the modern world.

    And it is SOLEY done so in order to discriminate against others. There is zero good for either side in these kinds of laws. Certainly not the customer but the businessman's conscience has to carry with it the shame and embarrassment he inflicted on his customer. Solely because of his sexuality, completely ignoring others that have "sinned" just as badly if not worse.

    We should not be writing laws for hypocrites.

  17. #94
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    The market is a process, not a thing. No one "owns" the market anymore than anyone owns the water cycle. You might own water that is part of the cycle, but you don't own the cycle itself.



    But lets operate under your moral premise for a second. Both buying and selling are apparently privileges, granted by the state for its inscrutable reasons.

    Presumably, you would argue that not selling to someone who is black, because they are black is and should be a crime.

    Ok, then should not buying from someone who is black, because they are black be a crime? If not, why not?

    Of course, if I publicly declare that I won't accept or consider bids for my new construction project from black owned companies that'd be discrimination and a civil rights violation.

    ---------- Post added at 02:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Thats because I wasn't formally challenging you yet.

    Its weird how you read the part you quoted, but not the exact next sentence.

    From your link:

    The remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas.

    So please support or retract that Sodomy laws are still in effect today.
    That doesn't change that they are still on the books, as supported.

    "The sheriff in East Baton Rouge doesn't care that the Supreme Court ruled anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional a decade ago, it's still on the books in Louisiana, so he's still arresting men for it.

    A dozen men have been arrested there since 2011, with the most recent this month, according to a report by Louisiana newspaper The Advocate. A spokesman for Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux (pictured) told the newspaper that “This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature.""

    http://www.advocate.com/crime/2013/0...nti-sodomy-law

    ---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    The market is a process, not a thing. No one "owns" the market anymore than anyone owns the water cycle. You might own water that is part of the cycle, but you don't own the cycle itself.

    hmm, I agree to the point except that the market is a human construct, not a natural process (it needs humans to exist), and we decide what form it will take and that form can be altered. Water will always be water, we can't make ammonia water tomorrow.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #95
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Specifically what right are you defending here? And can up come up with a MORAL form of that argument? Your best efforts at any defense kinda fall flat as Dio has already pointed out
    I don't believe your perception of the implications is anywhere near correct.
    Specific rights are Right to associate, right to property(basically the rights involved in any discrimination as far as I can tell). To name two specifically.
    Though we have laws against some kinds of discrimination there is no "right to not be discriminated against".
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  20. #96
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't believe your perception of the implications is anywhere near correct.
    OK then please produce a reason why "religious freedom" laws are needed that isn't for selfish reasons or at least a scenario where the religious will now be able to do something good for somebody else.

    Specific rights are Right to associate, right to property(basically the rights involved in any discrimination as far as I can tell). To name two specifically.
    Though we have laws against some kinds of discrimination there is no "right to not be discriminated against".
    Since we're talking about laws here and not rights this angle of discussion is irrelevant then. Right?

    ---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

    Breaking News: Indiana has signed some some language to clarify some of the issues regarding discrimination. It is a minor step but an important one that shows the hue and cry from rest of the country and businesses within and outside of the state has a real affect.

    Thank God that we live in a real Democracy. Next step - remove God from our Democracy.

  21. #97
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,073
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    News update

    They have modified the law to explicitly say that it does not permit refusal of service for being gay etc...
    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/p...lgbt/70766920/

    Good on them I say.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  23. #98
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Since we're talking about laws here and not rights this angle of discussion is irrelevant then. Right?
    My argument is what ought to be law, not what is law. So for my argument, it is very relevant wouldn't you agree?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  24. #99
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My argument is what ought to be law, not what is law. So for my argument, it is very relevant wouldn't you agree?
    Not if you're suggesting we ought to harm each other! The purpose of laws is to provide a more stable and tolerant and peaceful society. If whatever basis you believe law ought to be provides the direct opposite then it is most definitely not relevant. We see in Islam what happens when religious beliefs drive 'law' - no thanks!
    Last edited by JimJones8934; April 2nd, 2015 at 07:07 PM.

  25. #100
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    At all times you are an individual. And what you are not is a business. The individual and the business are two separate things. And likewise it is the business, not the individual, who will get sued if discrimination occurs.
    You are dancing in circles around yourself. You are an individual, but if you are working in a business, you do not have individual rights. If you try to have individual rights, you can be sued and your means by which you earn a living may be forced to end. Saying "You have individual rights, but you will be sued and shut down if you exercise them" is a pretty ridiculous position to take, Mican. Its like saying, "Sure you have the right to walk out my front door, but if you do, I will shoot you in the head"

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It depends why are you closing shop. If it's because it's after store hours, fine. If your are doing it because you don't want to serve the clients out of discrimination, you are breaking the law.
    What if you are refusing to serve them not because of discrimination, but because their lifestyle choices are in direct violation of your beliefs on what is right and wrong? Let's pretend that child marriage became legal tomorrow and you owned a cake shop. If some pedo walks in and asks you to bake them a cake celebrating his marriage and impending consummation with a 4 year old, is it discrimination to tell him no and to refuse to make that cake?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's a question, not a rebuttal.
    Haha. Typical tactic of someone that can't answer a question without compromising his position.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you open a business, you, as an individual, are not forced to bake cakes for gay weddings. Sure, if a gay couples asks you to bake a cake and you say no, it may eventually lead to your business having to shut down but the fact remains that you, as an individual, do not have to make them a cake. And it's certainly not a violation of your rights to have your business shut down as you do not have the right to keep your business open.
    Liberals are strange. So, its not a violation of one's rights, liberties, and freedoms to end someone's means of providing a living (thus unquestionably causing them harm) because they dont want to be a participator body in an act that they disagree with on a moral, religious, personal level. However, it is a violation of one's rights to be refused server at a cake shop....when there are thousands of cake shops around that would happily take their business. (thus, no harm is done.)

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What if there were no anti-discrimination laws but when the people of your town found out that you discriminated against a gay couple, everyone refused to shop at your store and that drove you out of business? Were your rights violated then? Of course not. You exercised your individual rights and then paid the consequences for it.
    I would have expected that you can see the difference in society making a conscience decision to not buy goods from a particular establishment because that establishment does not operate by the moral standards of that societal group (according to your skewed definition of the word, that would be discrimination against the business, which should be illegal and the people doing it sued, right?) and government FORCING an establishment to go out of business because they refused to do something for another person when their beliefs, values, or morals were to be compromised.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So yes, you absolutely have the right to not make a cake for a gay couple as an individual or a business owner. But you do not have the right to not suffer whatever consequences your discrimination may bring.
    If you are punished for exercising a right, its not really a right...now is it? "You have the right to speak out against government, but you do not have the right to not go to jail and be executed for it" Yep, that sounds like a good and free society there.

    Also, I would like to redirect the discussion to my point about asking the gay baker to make me a wedding cake that says, "homosexuality is a sin and all fags should burn in hell" why should the bakers be individually forced to make that sort of cake?

    If you are going to, hypocritically, claim that they shouldn't be forced to make it because of the words on the cake, then I assume you would support the individual asking the gay baker to make the cake being able to sue the gay baker for discrimination. The baker has no right to stay in business. If you are going to claim that they shouldn't be sued because they are objecting to the words on the cake, please explain why it is ok to find moral objections to words, but not ok to find moral objections to actions.

    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1638813393000186 <---a win for the good guys.

  26. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
 

 
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on "Positive Liberty"
    By Castle in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 26th, 2006, 03:59 PM
  2. "Religious belief, itself, is an adaptation"
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: March 24th, 2006, 07:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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