Ben Carson: It was OK for me to do research on aborted fetuses

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2015, 12:43 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: True, but don't liberals want to do the exact same thing? They have a moral code on issues such as abortion, gun rights and gay marriage, and they want to force it down everyone's throats just the same as conservatives want to push their moral standards. It goes both ways. If it didn't, conservatives would run this country. Last I checked, abortion was legal, gay marriage is legal, marijuana is being legalized and guns have more and more restrictions.

Perhaps conservatives aren't aggressive enough?

They do, but not on all those you listed. When the position requires less government intervention, such as in the case of gay marriage and abortion, it is not forcing anyone to accept anything. It is only saying that the government should not be making that call. There is no excuse like that on gun rights. This is why the libertarian stance is pro-choice and pro-SSM (with some saying government out of marriage altogether even though it has been a civil contract more than anything else throughout history).

[Shake n Blake]

(08-22-2015, 04:22 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why should the government ban gay marriage?  Most of what I (and probably you) was taught about marijuana is false.  I'm not aware of any medicinal applications for alcohol like I am for marijuana.  Some of the mandatory minimums related to marijuana are ridiculous compared to other felonies.  I've never had an problem buying a gun.  Have you?  My father, the felon, wasn't allowed to own a gun.

You're not really debating anything I said. Liberals have pushed for legalizing gay marriage. That is a moral stance, is it not? They've also pushed for abortion rights, legalizing marijuana and stricter gun laws. Are you debating that they haven't? If not, then you must agree with me that liberals push their morals and agendas as much as conservatives.

To answer your questions:

- Why should the government ban gay marriage? Well, why was it banned for hundreds of years up to this point? Obviously because a big portion of the country finds homosexuality to be an immoral practice. As much as liberals hate this, everyone's opinion is important, even the opinions of those who disagree with their moral standards.

- Pot. As with everything else, this is a complicated subject. Much of what we were taught was wrong, I agree. That said, people who smoke always downplay the effects. I smoked for 2-3 years as a teen, and I've had plenty of friends who smoke. Some heavily. I have one friend in particular who smokes heavily and hasn't had a job in 10 years. He'll sell anything that isn't nailed down for a joint. It's not like this for everyone, but I've known a lot of heavy smokers who don't want to get off their couch. All they think about is smoking. So I do think it's mentally addictive and it saps motivation out of some. I think it should be legal medically. I've heard about the benefits. Recreationally? No.

- Gun rights. No, I've never had a problem buying a gun. That doesn't mean that liberals don't push for stricter gun laws all the time. http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/27/news/assault-rifle-bullet-ban-obama-armor/

Again, my point in the post you quoted was that liberals push their morals and agendas just as vigorously as conservatives. If not more so. I don't see how anyone could debate that. 

[Shake n Blake]

(08-22-2015, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They do, but not on all those you listed. When the position requires less government intervention, such as in the case of gay marriage and abortion, it is not forcing anyone to accept anything. It is only saying that the government should not be making that call. There is no excuse like that on gun rights. This is why the libertarian stance is pro-choice and pro-SSM (with some saying government out of marriage altogether even though it has been a civil contract more than anything else throughout history).

Sure it is. It's forcing those who disagree to accept something they find morally objectionable. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2015, 02:46 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Sure it is. It's forcing those who disagree to accept something they find morally objectionable. 

How so? You aren't forced to participate or change your opinion because it is legal. Only businesses have to go the route of non-discrimination. Individuals can have any opinion they like and not be involved.

[*bfine32*]

(08-22-2015, 06:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How so? You aren't forced to participate or change your opinion because it is legal.

Unless you're a baker.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2015, 06:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How so? You aren't forced to participate or change your opinion because it is legal. Only businesses have to go the route of non-discrimination. Individuals can have any opinion they like and not be involved.

(08-22-2015, 09:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless you're a baker.

He said that.

It helps if you don't cut out the part of the original quote that you about to make an argument about.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-22-2015, 09:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless you're a baker.

Or a candle stick maker.

[*bfine32*]

(08-22-2015, 10:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: He said that.

It helps if you don't cut out the part of the original quote that you about to make an argument about.

Really don't see that it matters especially if the business is a sole proprietorship. The government is forcing that individual to forsake his or her morals. Seems like that government interference folks are so opposed to.

But I do agree that the "they don't except in situations that they do" defense is hard to combat.

[jakefromstatefarm]

I think bfine makes a rather fine point here, and I'm not just saying that because I'm on his side in the abortion debate.

It seems that many pro-choice people are making the argument that government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what to do, but that same government doesn't mind forcing private businesses to do certain things.

It's hypocritical, and a clear double standard.

IMO, private businesses should be free to serve or not serve whomever they want. If they make decisions to serve or not serve certain segments of society, the free market will sort it out.

The government shouldn't be making these decisions for them in a free society.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2015, 10:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Really don't see that it matters especially if the business is a sole proprietorship. The government is forcing that individual to forsake his or her morals. Seems like that government interference folks are so opposed to.

But I do agree that the "they don't except in situations that they do" defense is hard to combat.

Yes, telling a business they have to serve everyone equally is EXACTLY the same as telling the owner what they are allowed to believe and practice in their private life.

Exactly.



Carry on.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2015, 10:30 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I think bfine makes a rather fine point here, and I'm not just saying that because I'm on his side in the abortion debate.

It seems that many pro-choice people are making the argument that government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what to do, but that same government doesn't mind forcing private businesses to do certain things.  

It's hypocritical, and a clear double standard.  

IMO, private businesses should be free to serve or not serve whomever they want.  If they make decisions to serve or not serve certain segments of society, the free market will sort it out.  

The government shouldn't be making these decisions for them in a free society.

Again:

Yes, telling a business they have to serve everyone equally is EXACTLY the same as telling the owner what they are allowed to believe and practice in their private life.


Exactly.



Carry on.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-22-2015, 10:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, telling a business they have to serve everyone equally is EXACTLY the same as telling the owner what they are allowed to believe and practice in their private life.

Exactly.



Carry on.

What exactly gives the government the right to tell a private business that they have to serve everyone equally?

Can government force a black cake-maker to make a KKK cake? 

[GMDino]

(08-22-2015, 10:36 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What exactly gives the government the right to tell a private business that they have to serve everyone equally?

Can government force a black cake-maker to make a KKK cake? 

As long as there is no hate speech on it I imagine they can.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-22-2015, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote:



As long as there is no hate speech on it I imagine they can.

Show me exactly in that Constitution where it says that government has the power to force a private business to serve everyone equally. 

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment doesn't trump the 1st amendment. 

Further, if I were the Christian bakers and didn't want to make a gay wedding cake, I wouldn't tell them it's because I morally object.  I would just say "no" and leave it at that.  That alone would take away any case they may have for discrimination.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2015, 10:50 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Show me exactly in that Constitution where it says that government has the power to force a private business to serve everyone equally. 

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment doesn't trump the 1st amendment. 

Further, if I were the Christian bakers and didn't want to make a gay wedding cake, I wouldn't tell them it's because I morally object.  I would just say "no" and leave it at that.  That alone would take away any case they may have for discrimination.

Because hiding your discrimination makes it much better.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-22-2015, 10:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because hiding your discrimination makes it much better.  

I don't have discrimination against gays.  IDGAF who marries who. 

I still believe that the government has no right to tell a private business who they have to serve.

Maybe you can find a meme to make your argument here.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-22-2015, 10:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because hiding your discrimination makes it much better.  

But what if you think unborn children are being discriminated against? History has already judged us once on slavery; it will again on our current practice of killing unborn children. I take solace in the fact that I am on the right side of it.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2015, 11:01 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I don't have discrimination against gays.  IDGAF who marries who. 

I still believe that the government has no right to tell a private business who they have to serve.

Maybe you can find a meme to make your argument here.  

You used an example and I replied to the person in that example.

Didn't have to be you.

And after going round and round about how some people want to defend discrimination all that's left is a funny picture to post.

You (you or the universal you) can hate people with red hair and want them all dead...but if you run a business you have to treat them as equals.  Don't want to do that?  Don't open a business that deals with the public.

I don't even know if a meme would explain that to you.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2015, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But what if you think unborn children are being discriminated against? History has already judged us once on slavery; it will again on our current practice of killing unborn children.

Then you would have to convince the court that 2-8 cells deserves the same rights as a baby already born.

And you may be right some day.  What that has to do with businesses discriminating is anyone's guess.  But I certainly don't expect that to stop you from going off in a completely different tangent now to once again argue abortion.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-22-2015, 11:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: You (you or the universal you) can hate people with red hair and want them all dead...but if you run a business you have to treat them as equals.  Don't want to do that?  Don't open a business that deals with the public.

Shouldn't be that hard for you to highlight that portion of the Constitution that gives the government the power to tell a private business who they have to serve.