|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 14:54:40 GMT
Again, just read the other two sentences. Context is very important in writing. You can't get all of Moby Dick just by reading "Call me Ishmael."
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 14:56:26 GMT
Again, it's not a destination. It's a journey. There is no "to." It's all about constantly making things better for all citizens, especially the downtrodden. It's not about "who." It's about "what." More rights for citizens is progress. Less hate speech is progress. Equal opportunities is progress. More rights for all citizens or more rights for some? Sometimes when you provide a right to one you take a right from another. Who determinse who wins? What happens when one person's right collides with another's? That's the "forcing of perfection" I'm talking about. Someone is going to lose out, and that's where progress becomes extreme. All, of course. And no, you don't take rights away from others. When has that ever happened? Again, it's not about "who." Also again, no one is forcing "perfection." |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 19, 2018 14:57:13 GMT
Again, just read the other two sentences. Context is very important in writing. You can't get all of Moby Dick just by reading "Call me Ishmael." Again, so when I wrote "No he didn't," you didn't think "Exactly"? |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 14:59:10 GMT
Again, you're only focusing on the beginning. But now, you're only focusing on your own beginning. There was more to your own writing than just "No he didn't." Always read everything. Including your own words. That is not at all where I thought, "Exactly."
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 19, 2018 15:00:58 GMT
Again, you're only focusing on the beginning. But now, you're only focusing on your own beginning. There was more to your own writing than just "No he didn't." Always read everything. Including your own words. That is not at all where I thought, "Exactly." And in the vein of reading the whole thing in context, do you think that my second sentence had anything to do with my first sentence? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 15:09:40 GMT
More rights for all citizens or more rights for some? Sometimes when you provide a right to one you take a right from another. Who determinse who wins? What happens when one person's right collides with another's? That's the "forcing of perfection" I'm talking about. Someone is going to lose out, and that's where progress becomes extreme. All, of course. And no, you don't take rights away from others. When has that ever happened? Again, it's not about "who." Also again, no one is forcing "perfection." Yes it is. People's religious rights clash with others all the time. One side forces the other to do things against their will. It was wrong for anyone to say that one person shouldn't marry another, but it's right for someone to say they have to participate in their ceremony if they are religious and own a business. There's absolutely a "who"and a "perfection". |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 15:13:44 GMT
Again, you're only focusing on the beginning. But now, you're only focusing on your own beginning. There was more to your own writing than just "No he didn't." Always read everything. Including your own words. That is not at all where I thought, "Exactly." And in the vein of reading the whole thing in context, do you think that my second sentence had anything to do with my first sentence? You still haven't read my entire post, have you? |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 15:18:09 GMT
All, of course. And no, you don't take rights away from others. When has that ever happened? Again, it's not about "who." Also again, no one is forcing "perfection." Yes it is. People's religious rights clash with others all the time. One side forces the other to do things against their will. It was wrong for anyone to say that one person shouldn't marry another, but it's right for someone to say they have to participate in their ceremony if they are religious and own a business. There's absolutely a "who"and a "perfection". That's not a religious right. That was related to business. Business is not religion, no matter how much someone tries to hide behind it. Baking a cake is not participating in a ceremony. Religion does not come with a right to discriminate. No one lost their religious rights. Just their attempt to discriminate in public. That's not forcing perfection. That's enforcing equal protection under the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 19, 2018 15:19:39 GMT
And in the vein of reading the whole thing in context, do you think that my second sentence had anything to do with my first sentence? You still haven't read my entire post, have you? So yet another jerk who won't answer questions. Noted. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 19, 2018 15:21:13 GMT
Without even delving into crime rates or anything like that, I think if you simply look at people's comments on social media or in the comments section of various news articles, I feel confident in saying words. People are such scum anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 15:23:54 GMT
You still haven't read my entire post, have you? So yet another jerk who won't answer questions. Noted. If you're trying to make a case for society worsening, it's not working. I still have no problem with you. I'm sorry it had to devolve to this. Fair thee well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 15:25:58 GMT
Yes it is. People's religious rights clash with others all the time. One side forces the other to do things against their will. It was wrong for anyone to say that one person shouldn't marry another, but it's right for someone to say they have to participate in their ceremony if they are religious and own a business. There's absolutely a "who"and a "perfection". That's not a religious right. That was related to business. Business is not religion, no matter how much someone tries to hide behind it. Baking a cake is not participating in a ceremony. Religion does not come with a right to discriminate. No one lost their religious rights. Just their attempt to discriminate in public. That's not forcing perfection. That's enforcing equal protection under the law. So private business is separated from religion now? A businessperson has to leave their religion behind when they turn the sign over to "Open"? It's a heck of a long way from being denied services from government. Look at the 80's you talk about then look at the bakers shop... It's not like there's bakers shops right down the street that don't have religious issues. It's a pursuit of perfection that ends up infringing on others rights. If a place doesn't sell you a cake, that's discrimination. If a place doesn't sell you a cake decorated the way you dictate, that's pursuing perfection. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 19, 2018 15:27:57 GMT
So yet another jerk who won't answer questions. Noted. If you're trying to make a case for society worsening, it's not working. I still have no problem with you. I'm sorry it had to devolve to this. Fair thee well. I wouldn't be trying to make a case to convince you of anything like that. You think way too highly of yourself if you'd believe I'd care about that with respect to you at this point. You would have needed to behave very differently in our interaction for me to care about that. And that's not to mention that I think this is a completely subjective matter anyway (whether anything is better or worse, etc.). Still, even with that, I do think it's worth trying to sway some individuals on some subjective matters, but I'd not waste the time or energy towards you at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 15:31:52 GMT
That's not a religious right. That was related to business. Business is not religion, no matter how much someone tries to hide behind it. Baking a cake is not participating in a ceremony. Religion does not come with a right to discriminate. No one lost their religious rights. Just their attempt to discriminate in public. That's not forcing perfection. That's enforcing equal protection under the law. So private business is separated from religion now? A businessperson has to leave their religion behind when they turn the sign over to "Open"? It's a heck of a long way from being denied services from government. Look at the 80's you talk about then look at the bakers shop... It's not like there's bakers shops right down the street that don't have religious issues. It's a pursuit of perfection that ends up infringing on others rights. If a place doesn't sell you a cake, that's discrimination. If a place doesn't sell you a cake decorated the way you dictate, that's pursuing perfection. Absolutely. If their religion involves discriminating against protected classes. It'd be no different if they said, "We don't make cakes for interracial marriages because our religion says marriages must be pure." The bakers were the ones infringing. There is no right to discriminate. Not even hiding behind religion.
It's enforcing equal protection, not forcing perfection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 15:49:23 GMT
So private business is separated from religion now? A businessperson has to leave their religion behind when they turn the sign over to "Open"? It's a heck of a long way from being denied services from government. Look at the 80's you talk about then look at the bakers shop... It's not like there's bakers shops right down the street that don't have religious issues. It's a pursuit of perfection that ends up infringing on others rights. If a place doesn't sell you a cake, that's discrimination. If a place doesn't sell you a cake decorated the way you dictate, that's pursuing perfection. Absolutely. If their religion involves discriminating against protected classes. It'd be no different if they said, "We don't make cakes for interracial marriages because our religion says marriages must be pure." The bakers were the ones infringing. There is no right to discriminate. Not even hiding behind religion.
It's enforcing equal protection, not forcing perfection.My point is, one side of the fight is absolutely going to be infringed upon. And it's a completely forced issue. If someone goes into a business and they want a cake, then that business had better make them a cake the way that business wants. If someone goes into a business an says that I want an "interracial cake" or a "gay cake" when that business doesn't make "interracial cakes" or "gay cakes" then the rights of the business owner as a religious person is absolutely infringed. If someone won't bake you a cake, it's wrong, it's a denial of service. If someone won't bake you a cake because you are dictating that the cake be made in a way that infringes on that person's religious rights, then it's forcing a perfection. Should a portrait artist for hire be forced to paint a picture that infringes on his own moral values? A photographer? A preacher? |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 15:57:39 GMT
But there was no infringement on the man's religion. He can still practice all he wants. As I said, there is no right to discriminate. He never had that right, so nothing was infringed. He can't discriminate and then try to hide behind his religion.
You're misunderstanding. It's not that they didn't get a cake. It's that they didn't get a cake because they were gay. That's where the baker broke the law.
There is no right to discriminate. So nothing is infringed. It's like saying they infringed their right to steal. No such right exists. Religion does not mean you can discriminate.
Again, the issue isn't that it wasn't some "gay cake." It had nothing to do with the cake. He discriminated against people. That's where he's wrong. It wasn't, "I can't make this type of cake." It was, "I can't make this cake for you because you're gay." Enforcing the law is not forcing perfection.
A preacher, certainly not. That'd be a religious issue.
But photogs and artists aren't a religion. They are not allowed to discriminate either. Discrimination is not a right. Plain and simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 16:05:32 GMT
But there was no infringement on the man's religion. He can still practice all he wants. As I said, there is no right to discriminate. He never had that right, so nothing was infringed. He can't discriminate and then try to hide behind his religion. You're misunderstanding. It's not that they didn't get a cake. It's that they didn't get a cake because they were gay. That's where the baker broke the law. There is no right to discriminate. So nothing is infringed. It's like saying they infringed their right to steal. No such right exists. Religion does not mean you can discriminate. Again, the issue isn't that it wasn't some "gay cake." It had nothing to do with the cake. He discriminated against people. That's where he's wrong. It wasn't, "I can't make this type of cake." It was, "I can't make this cake for you because you're gay." Enforcing the law is not forcing perfection. A preacher, certainly not. That'd be a religious issue. But photogs and artists aren't a religion. They are not allowed to discriminate either. Discrimination is not a right. Plain and simple. I'll get up and fight on the side of anyone who is denied buying a cake. If that person who is buying a cake is saying that cake must be made a certain way to their dictation, and that baker doesn't want to make it that way, then I'm fighting on the other side, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 16:22:27 GMT
There was no issue with the way the cake was made. It was only for who. That's when the baker broke the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 16:26:04 GMT
There was no issue with the way the cake was made. It was only for who. That's when the baker broke the law. What about a baker who won't put a topper with a gay couple on top or order and stock such items? Does that baker break the law? |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 19, 2018 16:30:28 GMT
Only if he already has them in inventory and won't sell them to the gay couple.
Discrimination is against a person's protected class. If he's doing it specifically and only to the gay couple because of their homosexuality, yes, he's breaking the law.
Just switch it to race, and the answer will be simple. "I don't stock or top black couples for black weddings because it's against my religion."
|
|
