Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 15 minutes ago, rockpond said: A counterpoint to the WSJ op-ed: https://baptistnews.com/2016/04/19/when-religious-liberty-demands-cease-to-be-legitimate/ Her closing thoughts (though some of it won't make sense if you don't read the op-ed... So basically everyone who wants freedom to exercise their own religion should expect persecution and intolerance from others in society who don't really care whether or not exercising your religion is easy or difficult because those people who don't care are the people everyone else should be trying to serve, preferably with a smile while asking if there is anything else we can do to help them. Wedding cake, anyone? I just baked it myself.
Freedom Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 5 hours ago, Ahab said: No, and after thinking about it some more still No. Not a valid conclusion. Or at least I still enjoy movies depicting good vs evil where the good guys always come out on the top, and many mass produced products, and some pharmaceuticals too. Never really been much of a sports guy, though, except for a few versions of golf and tennis when I am the one playing. And maybe horseshoes too, sometimes. And riding 4 wheelers, if that can be considered a sport. And maybe a few other things that are or could be called sports. Oh, and I also making some judgements against doing anything that shows I am in favor of helping people to do anything that really is not good for them to be doing, regardless of whether you do or don't mind being complicit in their evil activities. So you are ok with child labour, gambling, pornography and a host of other ills that is tied in with any given product you buy or program you watch? I would rather live my life the best I can and be in the world but not part of it by offering good service to whoever comes my way. A person is much more likely to change when faced with a forgiving and helpful person than one who refuses to give them any service at all.
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Freedom said: So you are ok with child labour, gambling, pornography and a host of other ills that is tied in with any given product you buy or program you watch? I would rather live my life the best I can and be in the world but not part of it by offering good service to whoever comes my way. A person is much more likely to change when faced with a forgiving and helpful person than one who refuses to give them any service at all. Not getting what is prompting you to ask me that question. I AM the kind of guy who will tell you or anybody else when you are doing anything that is bad, if I see you do it, while refusing to help you do anything that is bad. YOU sound like the kind of guy who would help someone do something that is bad just so you could say you are being of service.
rockpond Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 54 minutes ago, Ahab said: So basically everyone who wants freedom to exercise their own religion should expect persecution and intolerance from others in society who don't really care whether or not exercising your religion is easy or difficult because those people who don't care are the people everyone else should be trying to serve, preferably with a smile while asking if there is anything else we can do to help them. Wedding cake, anyone? I just baked it myself. THAT'S what you took from that article? Wow. I think you completely missed her point.
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 17 minutes ago, rockpond said: THAT'S what you took from that article? Wow. I think you completely missed her point. Suppose my business is baking wedding cakes for "straight" couples and a gay "couple" comes in wanting to buy one. Do you get it yet?
rockpond Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: Suppose my business is baking wedding cakes for "straight" couples and a gay "couple" comes in wanting to buy one. Do you get it yet? I guess if a gay couple wants to buy a straight couple cake, they can buy one. 3
rockpond Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Quote Retailer Target has joined the growing number of corporations allowing people to use restrooms that match their gender identity, the company announced Tuesday. "We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity," the retailer said in a statement to CNN. "Everyone deserves to feel like they belong." I celebrated by buying milk from Target on my way home... religious freedom safely intact. #notthatdramatic 2
provoman Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Suppose my business is baking wedding cakes for "straight" couples and a gay "couple" comes in wanting to buy one. Do you get it yet? Suppose my business is for baking wedding cakes for Baptist couples and a Mormon couple comes in wanting to buy one. Do you get it yet?
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 3 hours ago, rockpond said: I guess if a gay couple wants to buy a straight couple cake, they can buy one. So, No, you still don't get it. Must be just some more of that ever learning without coming to the knowledge of the truth I keep hearing about.
thesometimesaint Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 11 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: And you clearly approve. People who refuse to support "same sex weddings" don't deserve to have a livelihood. I approve of people following the law. I don't support same sex weddings. I support following the law. 1
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 9 hours ago, provoman said: Suppose my business is for baking wedding cakes for Baptist couples and a Mormon couple comes in wanting to buy one. Do you get it yet? Perfect opportunity for a business referral. You know, like Santa did at Macy's in The Miracle on 34th Street movie. 1
ttribe Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 12 hours ago, Ahab said: Suppose my business is baking wedding cakes for "straight" couples and a gay "couple" comes in wanting to buy one. Do you get it yet? In 1963 a business owner might have said - "Suppose my business is baking wedding cakes for 'white' couples and a mixed-race 'couple' comes in wanting to buy one." In 1964, it wouldn't have been legal to do that anymore. Do you get it yet? 1
provoman Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Ahab said: So basically everyone who wants freedom to exercise their own religion should expect persecution and intolerance from others in society who don't really care whether or not exercising your religion is easy or difficult because those people who don't care are the people everyone else should be trying to serve, preferably with a smile while asking if there is anything else we can do to help them. Wedding cake, anyone? I just baked it myself. Let's break down the situation: Patron 1 purchased goods and services from private business A. Patron 1 has every expectation that Business A sells goods and services to the general public. Patron 2 purchased goods and services from private business A. Patron 2 has every expectation that Business A sells good and services to the general public. Patron 1 realizes that Business A sold goods and services to Patron 2. Patron 1 has a deeply held proven religious doctrine against Patron 2. Patron 1 demands Business A revoke the good and services sold to Patron 2. Patron 1 exclaims his religious liberty is violated by Business A because Business A sold goods and services to Patron 2. Business A refuses. Are you suggesting that Business A has violated Patron 1 religious liberty for not revoking the goods and services sold to Patron 2? The author in the OP is correct - religious liberty is protection from Government. Religious liberty IS NOT about private individuals accommodating individual beliefs. Edited April 21, 2016 by provoman
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 51 minutes ago, provoman said: Let's break down the situation: Patron 1 purchased goods and services from private business A. Patron 1 has every expectation that Business A sells goods and services to the general public. Patron 2 purchased goods and services from private business A. Patron 2 has every expectation that Business A sells good and services to the general public. Patron 1 realizes that Business A sold goods and services to Patron 2. Patron 1 has a deeply held proven religious doctrine against Patron 2. Patron 1 demands Business A revoke the good and services sold to Patron 2. Patron 1 exclaims his religious liberty is violated by Business A because Business A sold goods and services to Patron 2. Business A refuses. Are you suggesting that Business A has violated Patron 1 religious liberty for not revoking the goods and services sold to Patron 2? The author in the OP is correct - religious liberty is protection from Government. Religious liberty IS NOT about private individuals accommodating individual beliefs. Do you seriously think your scenario helps anyone to understand the issue here? Anyone who doesn't understand it yet, I mean? Let's start with eliminating the expectation that the intent of every business is to sell goods and service to the general public. And with the expectation that any business owner should be able to sell goods and services to whoever they want to sell to without any government entity mandating that they must sell goods and services to anyone who walks into that business. Forget the color of anyone's skin for a moment if you can. The fact that ANY body or group of people thought they could go in to a restaurant or bakery and DEMAND to be served should not have been tolerated. For the government to try to force by law anyone to provide a service is in essence the government trying to enforce slavery, not allowing any business owner to refuse to serve anyone they don't want to serve. What we have here is a lack of respect for FREEDOM!
ttribe Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: Do you seriously think your scenario helps anyone to understand the issue here? Anyone who doesn't understand it yet, I mean? Let's start with eliminating the expectation that the intent of every business is to sell goods and service to the general public. And with the expectation that any business owner should be able to sell goods and services to whoever they want to sell to without any government entity mandating that they must sell goods and services to anyone who walks into that business. Forget the color of anyone's skin for a moment if you can. The fact that ANY body or group of people thought they could go in to a restaurant or bakery and DEMAND to be served should not have been tolerated. For the government to try to force by law anyone to provide a service is in essence the government trying to enforce slavery, not allowing any business owner to refuse to serve anyone they don't want to serve. What we have here is a lack of respect for FREEDOM! Ho.Lee.Crap. [SMH] Do you consider yourself an anarchist? ETA: You've said some crazy stuff on this board...but this one truly takes the 'cake'. (all puns intended) Edited April 21, 2016 by ttribe
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 44 minutes ago, ttribe said: Ho.Lee.Crap. [SMH] Do you consider yourself an anarchist? ETA: You've said some crazy stuff on this board...but this one truly takes the 'cake'. (all puns intended) Anarchist? No. Just that I get to pick and choose which laws, and whose laws, to obey. How about you? Do you obey every law you've ever heard about just because some people call it a "law"? We all pick and choose, I think. I call that FREEDOM!
rockpond Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: Anarchist? No. Just that I get to pick and choose which laws, and whose laws, to obey. That's pretty close to the definition of anarchy. FYI. (Anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.) 1
california boy Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Do you seriously think your scenario helps anyone to understand the issue here? Anyone who doesn't understand it yet, I mean? Let's start with eliminating the expectation that the intent of every business is to sell goods and service to the general public. And with the expectation that any business owner should be able to sell goods and services to whoever they want to sell to without any government entity mandating that they must sell goods and services to anyone who walks into that business. Forget the color of anyone's skin for a moment if you can. The fact that ANY body or group of people thought they could go in to a restaurant or bakery and DEMAND to be served should not have been tolerated. For the government to try to force by law anyone to provide a service is in essence the government trying to enforce slavery, not allowing any business owner to refuse to serve anyone they don't want to serve. What we have here is a lack of respect for FREEDOM! Holy crap! I think we are all going to have to accept that you and George Wallace strongly believe that the civil rights movement should have never happened and that you believe that businesses in the south and anywhere else had a right to keep blacks in their place and not allow them at their lunch counters You do know that even George Wallace regretted his decision to fight discrimination later in his life. You seem to be one of the last people left that thought George Wallace had it right the first time
ttribe Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 40 minutes ago, Ahab said: Anarchist? No. Just that I get to pick and choose which laws, and whose laws, to obey. How about you? Do you obey every law you've ever heard about just because some people call it a "law"? We all pick and choose, I think. I call that FREEDOM! With the exception of a few speed limits, yeah, I try to obey the law. And, BTW, rockpond is correct. You both denied and admitted you are an anarchist all in one post.
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 37 minutes ago, rockpond said: That's pretty close to the definition of anarchy. FYI. (Anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.) When given the choice of following a bad law and a good law I choose to follow the good law. A law that forces or coerces people to serve specific other people to help them to do something that is bad for them to do is a bad law.
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 16 minutes ago, california boy said: Holy crap! I think we are all going to have to accept that you and George Wallace strongly believe that the civil rights movement should have never happened and that you believe that businesses in the south and anywhere else had a right to keep blacks in their place and not allow them at their lunch counters You do know that even George Wallace regretted his decision to fight discrimination later in his life. You seem to be one of the last people left that thought George Wallace had it right the first time That's a bit different than what I'm talking about because there is nothing wrong with a person having black skin, but still yes nobody should have tried to force all businesses to serve everybody. Every person should have the right to serve anybody they want to serve. Even gay people, if people want to serve gay people. But still nobody, not even a government entity, should be forcing people to serve other people.
ttribe Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: When given the choice of following a bad law and a good law I choose to follow the good law. A law that forces or coerces people to serve specific other people to help them to do something that is bad for them to do is a bad law. Except, of course, the only person who would agree with you 100% on what constitutes a "good" or "bad" law is you; no big deal, right? You can just be the dictator of what's "good" and "bad"? Edited April 21, 2016 by ttribe
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: With the exception of a few speed limits, yeah, I try to obey the law. And, BTW, rockpond is correct. You both denied and admitted you are an anarchist all in one post. Depends on what kind of a law it is. I obey or at least try to be obey all righteous laws but No I do not obey any unrighteous laws. And God's laws count too. Do you obey all of God's laws. Or do you even recognize his authority?
Ahab Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, ttribe said: Except, of course, the only person who would agree with you 100% on what constitutes a "good" or "bad" law is you; no big deal, right? You can just be the dictator of what's "good" and "bad"? I rely on God to guide me so it's not just me but God too, or at least my best understanding of God's will for what I should do. But yeah, if I wanted to, I could just rely on my own wisdom and intelligence to do what I think is best regardless of what anyone else has to say about anything. And you could too. We all could. And many people on this planet do that already with no reliance on God at all.
ttribe Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 18 minutes ago, Ahab said: Depends on what kind of a law it is. I obey or at least try to be obey all righteous laws but No I do not obey any unrighteous laws. And God's laws count too. Do you obey all of God's laws. Or do you even recognize his authority? Sorry, I don't answer questions about my relationship with God on the Internet, anymore. Being targeted by Doctor Scratch for harm to my ability to take care of my family financially left me to withdraw from such disclosures a number of years ago. 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: I rely on God to guide me so it's not just me but God too, or at least my best understanding of God's will for what I should do. But yeah, if I wanted to, I could just rely on my own wisdom and intelligence to do what I think is best regardless of what anyone else has to say about anything. And you could too. We all could. And many people on this planet do that already with no reliance on God at all. So, unless God sets up an organized way of establishing an Earthly government, then we are all left to our own interpretations of "good", "bad" and what we believe God is telling us. IOW - anarchy. Pragmatism really isn't your thing, is it?
Recommended Posts