The Oregon Bakery Truth

[SmileyMcGee]

I think that's a potentially dangerous attitude, because it could result in the loss of one of the bedrock freedoms upon which the nation was founded without most people even being aware of what was lost, or how. To each, his or her own. In time, We'll see who's right. The problem is that there's more at stake here than the wages of a casual bet.

you think it's safer to restrict the meaning of various freedoms to what you think one group of people thought they should mean?

Edited July 14, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[sheilauk]

I guess you and i have differing definitions of religious freedom. Also, even if you could prove the intent of those who drafted the first amendment (which I don't think you can) I couldn't care less what a few wealthy, 18th century land owners thought about religious freedom.

Given that the Founding Fathers respected the Magna Carta and took some of their ideas from it, I think you're being a bit limited here - you should care less what 13th century land owners (barons) thought about religious freedom.

 

And what about the land owners of the late 20th century.  Do you care less what they thought about religious freedom when they drafted the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights?  And do you care less what the (awful socialist) Europeans thought when they drafted the European Convention on Human Rights (quite a number of UK lawyers were involved in that btw) - since the US Constitution was one of the guiding documents for those two conventions?  I imagine they had some ideas on what the drafters of the earlier documents might have intended.  Do the views and intentions of those men and women - well respected and highly educated and experienced - carry any weight?

[SmileyMcGee]

Given that the Founding Fathers respected the Magna Carta and took some of their ideas from it, I think you're being a bit limited here - you should care less what 13th century land owners (barons) thought about religious freedom.

And what about the land owners of the late 20th century. Do you care less what they thought about religious freedom when they drafted the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights? And do you care less what the (awful socialist) Europeans thought when they drafted the European Convention on Human Rights (quite a number of UK lawyers were involved in that btw) - since the US Constitution was one of the guiding documents for those two conventions? I imagine they had some ideas on what the drafters of the earlier documents might have intended. Do the views and intentions of those men and women - well respected and highly educated and experienced - carry any weight?

I care only for the merit of ideas not the people behind them. When people defend some idea because "that's how the founding fathers would have it," I think, who cares what they thought about the idea. What matters is whether the idea is good for contemporary society. Things change, ideas that were once beneficial can become irrelevant or dangerous. Edited July 14, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[sheilauk]

Are not the ideas in the Constitution and the Universal declaration and the Convention and the Magna Carta universal and enduring ideas which remain relevant and beneficial to society?  How do you interpret those ideas and decide how they should be implemented?  Is it simply your view/interpretation?  Or do you listen to others?  Do you care about anyone's views?  How do you decide if an idea is beneficial and relevant?  If you listen to others, then why not listen to those who thought the ideas through, discussed them and set them down on paper?  Why are their views less relevant?  Is that simply because you take a relative point of view, by which I mean considering only what is appropriate now?  Isn't that dangerous?  Isn't that how ideas become twisted shadows of themselves?

[Damien the Leper]

I certainly don't follow it regularly enough to know, but I doubt the Oregonian can be considered a bastion of conservative thought. (Hell, are there any conservatives, besides Garden Girl, left in Oregon?  )  While the paper can't resist getting in its digs against the Kleins, it's not sparing in its criticism of Commissioner Avakian, either.  (Apologies if this has already been posted.):

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/bolis_sweet_cakes_judgment_tak.html#incart_related_stories

Garden Girl will be voting for Hillary and becoming a Ute fan. She has already told me this with a signed affidavit.

[SmileyMcGee]

Are not the ideas in the Constitution and the Universal declaration and the Convention and the Magna Carta universal and enduring ideas which remain relevant and beneficial to society? How do you interpret those ideas and decide how they should be implemented? Is it simply your view/interpretation? Or do you listen to others? Do you care about anyone's views? How do you decide if an idea is beneficial and relevant? If you listen to others, then why not listen to those who thought the ideas through, discussed them and set them down on paper? Why are their views less relevant? Is that simply because you take a relative point of view, by which I mean considering only what is appropriate now? Isn't that dangerous? Isn't that how ideas become twisted shadows of themselves?

why would we subscribe to ideas that aren't appropriate now? What makes the magna carta and constitution universal and enduring? Is there such thing as a non-relative point of view? Much of your laundry list of questions is not relevant. I never said that I don't care for the ideas of others, in fact, I recognize that probably all of the ideals that I hold to did not originate with me. I simply reject the appeal to authority as a defense for one interpretation of the constitution.

Edited July 14, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[sheilauk]

why would we subscribe to ideas that aren't appropriate now? What makes the magma carta and constitution universal and enduring? Is there such thing as a non-relative point of view? Much of your laundry list of questions is not relevant. I never said that I don't care for the ideas of others, in fact, I recognize that probably all of the ideals that I hold to did not originate with me. I simply reject the appeal to authority as a defense for one interpretation of the constitution.

Why are they universal and enduring - perhaps because and only because so far so many people have continued to espouse them?  Maybe they won't endure for ever, but they have endured so far and, to me, show no sign of abating in usefulness.

 

Is there such a thing as a non-relative point of view? - perhaps, perhaps not.  What is Truth?

 

Why are the questions not relevant?

 

You said its the appeal to authority as a defense that you reject.  Okay.  I don't think I got that from you initially.  As a lawyer, I'm probably used to accepting appeals to authority and to relying on the views of those in the past, so maybe that's why I don't quite get that objection.

[SmileyMcGee]

Why are they universal and enduring - perhaps because and only because so far so many people have continued to espouse them? Maybe they won't endure for ever, but they have endured so far and, to me, show no sign of abating in usefulness.

Is there such a thing as a non-relative point of view? - perhaps, perhaps not. What is Truth?

Why are the questions not relevant?

You said its the appeal to authority as a defense that you reject. Okay. I don't think I got that from you initially. As a lawyer, I'm probably used to accepting appeals to authority and to relying on the views of those in the past, so maybe that's why I don't quite get that objection.

Ya, I agree that there's value in precedence, I just struggle with the application sometimes. Edited July 14, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[sheilauk]

Why are they universal and enduring - perhaps because and only because so far so many people have continued to espouse them?  Maybe they won't endure for ever, but they have endured so far and, to me, show no sign of abating in usefulness.

 

Is there such a thing as a non-relative point of view? - perhaps, perhaps not.  What is Truth?

 

Why are the questions not relevant?

 

You said its the appeal to authority as a defense that you reject.  Okay.  I don't think I got that from you initially.  As a lawyer, I'm probably used to accepting appeals to authority and to relying on the views of those in the past, so maybe that's why I don't quite get that objection.

 

 

Ya, I agree that there's value in precedence, I just struggle with the application sometimes.

 

Now that I can understand.

[Raingirl]

Ya think?  But, Danzo, what about their tender widdo feewings?!

 

 

 

Man...if I only I could get $135,000 every time I suffered "emotional damage"......

[Russell C McGregor]

Just in case people were wondering, this was never about persecuting Christians as the narcissists would have you believe.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

 

I'm sorry, were homosexuals saying it was about persecuting Christians?

[Damien the Leper]

I'm sorry, were homosexuals saying it was about persecuting Christians?

No one really was. That would be disingenuous.

[Kenngo1969]

Given that the Founding Fathers respected the Magna Carta and took some of their ideas from it, I think you're being a bit limited here - you should care less what 13th century land owners (barons) thought about religious freedom.

 

And what about the land owners of the late 20th century.  Do you care less what they thought about religious freedom when they drafted the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights?  And do you care less what the (awful socialist) Europeans thought when they drafted the European Convention on Human Rights (quite a number of UK lawyers were involved in that btw) - since the US Constitution was one of the guiding documents for those two conventions?  I imagine they had some ideas on what the drafters of the earlier documents might have intended.  Do the views and intentions of those men and women - well respected and highly educated and experienced - carry any weight?

My Dear, that post deserves far more than the single rep point I was able to give you for it.  (Always nice to "Cyber-see" you. )

[Kenngo1969]

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded..."   (no I did not order the code red)

 

 

Colonel Jessup said that those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.  (Yes, I know you have perfectly valid, sensible reasons for not quoting what he said in its entirety on that occasion: No sense in sending this thread down a Second Amendment rabbit hole! )

 

P.S.: I'm glad you didn't order the Code Red.  (Did you know that he ordered it in enough time to be able to stop it, though?  That's the real question.  If you did, I'm sorry you didn't have more courage than Lt. Col. Markinson. )

Edited July 15, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

you think it's safer to restrict the meaning of various freedoms to what you think one group of people thought they should mean?

I think the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is rather clear on its face, no matter how outmoded and passé religion has become in our secular, progressive, enlightened age, and no matter how courts (including the United States Supreme Court) attempt to contort its rather plain meaning.