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

[GMDino]

(08-23-2015, 10:02 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I don't have any scenario, nor do I have a religion, nor do I give a shit who is gay or not. 

I don't fall into the stupidity of the left vs right paradigm and need group-think to tell me what to believe in or not. 

I'm a believer in individual liberty.  I believe that person A has just as much freedom to be gay and marry whomever they choose just as much as I believe person B as a business owner has just as freedom to serve whomever they choose. 

I'm sorry that you can't see past your own hypocrisy enough to get that, and I'm even further sorry that you can't dismiss my arguments based on calling me some right-wing religious whacko. 

So my saying that a business serving the public has to treat the entire public equally is hypocrisy....but your logic of saying if the owner doesn't like black people he can refuse to serve them isn't?

Got it.



I don't consider it left vs right.  I consider it human to want to treat each other equally.  Whether in business OR privately.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 10:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: So my saying that a business serving the public has to treat the entire public equally is hypocrisy....but your logic of saying if the owner doesn't like black people he can refuse to serve them isn't?

Got it.



I don't consider it left vs right.  I consider it human to want to treat each other equally.  Whether in business OR privately.  

No, it's not hypocrisy. 

You're all for individual liberty on left-wing issues (gay marriage, abortion), but then believe that government has to get involved to protect those poor discriminated gays who can't find anyone to make them a wedding cake but the only Christian baker in town. 

[GMDino]

(08-23-2015, 10:07 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, it's not hypocrisy. 

You're all for individual liberty on left-wing issues (gay marriage, abortion), but then believe that government has to get involved to protect those poor discriminated gays who can't find anyone to make them a wedding cake but the only Christian baker in town. 

I am for individual liberty on all issues.  Someone can hate gays, blacks, Chinese, whatever group they are afraid will destroy the 'Murica they know and love.

But if they want to run a business that serves the public they can't use their own person bias to simply not serve a portion of the population.

Seems pretty straight forward.  Don't want to talk to black people...don't open a business they might want to frequent.

But turning your personal values in to a reason to legally discriminate is wrong.

I guess wanting to treat everyone the same isn't conservative enough for you?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 10:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: I am for individual liberty on all issues.  Someone can hate gays, blacks, Chinese, whatever group they are afraid will destroy the 'Murica they know and love.

But if they want to run a business that serves the public they can't use their own person bias to simply not serve a portion of the population.

Seems pretty straight forward.  Don't want to talk to black people...don't open a business they might want to frequent.

But turning your personal values in to a reason to legally discriminate is wrong.

I guess wanting to treat everyone the same isn't conservative enough for you?

So refusing to make a gay wedding cake is the same as refusing to serve a gay person?

You see no difference there at all?

Really?

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2015, 10:05 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No. 

Refusing to make a gay wedding cake is based off of an objection to the wedding, not the person. 

Now if a gay person went to a baker and asked them to make a birthday cake and were refused, you'd have a point.  

Person walks into a bakery and asks for a wedding cake. They go through the entire process of the details until at the very end he asks "do you have any toppers with two grooms?" At this point the transaction ends because the baker refuses service.

If a baker will bake wedding cakes for other couples, but won't for a same sex couple, then it is because they are gay. That is the difference there. Masking it behind the defense of not agreeing with SSM is a farce. The reason, the root of the denial of service, is because they are gay. It's nothing more than attempting to use religion to discriminate.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Person walks into a bakery and asks for a wedding cake. They go through the entire process of the details until at the very end he asks "do you have any toppers with two grooms?" At this point the transaction ends because the baker refuses service.

If a baker will bake wedding cakes for other couples, but won't for a same sex couple, then it is because they are gay. That is the difference there. Masking it behind the defense of not agreeing with SSM is a farce. The reason, the root of the denial of service, is because they are gay. It's nothing more than attempting to use religion to discriminate.

Is it possible to prove that someone is using religion to discriminate?  No, it isn't.  If that were the grounds for a lawsuit, it would never see a courtroom. 

What's wrong with using my example? 

There is a difference between refusing to serve a gay and refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

[GMDino]

(08-23-2015, 10:19 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So refusing to make a gay wedding cake is the same as refusing to serve a gay person?

You see no difference there at all?

Really?

Yes...no difference. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 10:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yes...no difference. 

I'm not surprised.  

[GMDino]

(08-23-2015, 10:57 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm not surprised.  

Look, I can't help it for you can't see that refusal of service for being gay is no different from refusal of service for being gay and getting married.

You are not anti-marriage.  So you are anti-gay.

(not "you"...the universal you for whomever we are speaking about in your example)

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 11:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Look, I can't help it for you can't see that refusal of service for being gay is no different from refusal of service for being gay and getting married.

It is entirely different. 

Again, if a gay person asked the Christian baker to make them a birthday cake and the baker refused, then yes, it can be said that the baker is anti-gay. 

If a gay couple goes to ask the Christian baker to make them a wedding cake, it is the wedding that they are objecting to, not their homosexuality. 

It's going to take more than you just continuously stating that there's no difference and an eye-rolling emoji to make it so.  

[BmorePat87]

(08-23-2015, 11:25 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: It is entirely different. 

Again, if a gay person asked the Christian baker to make them a birthday cake and the baker refused, then yes, it can be said that the baker is anti-gay. 

If a gay couple goes to ask the Christian baker to make them a wedding cake, it is the wedding that they are objecting to, not their homosexuality. 

It's going to take more than you just continuously stating that there's no difference and an eye-rolling emoji to make it so.  

It's not different. By your logic, I can just argue that the baker objects to the birthday, not the fact that they're gay.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 11:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's not different. By your logic, I can just argue that the baker objects to the birthday, not the fact that they're gay.

Ridiculous. 

If a Christian baker makes it obvious that they object to SSM, I'd say that it would be clear what they are objecting to.

Further, if people and government would stop interfering in private business, none of this stuff would matter to begin with.

What purpose is behind a gay couple going to a Christian baker for a wedding cake for to begin with?  Wouldn't be targeting, would it? 

I'm pretty wore out on the entire victimhood game that liberals are always looking to play and claim. 

If someone doesn't want my business, fine with me.  I couldn't care less what the reason is. 

Grow up and get over yourselves.  

[Benton]

(08-23-2015, 09:53 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: While I'll agree with the general premise that we do have to do deal with certain things that the FF didn't foresee by ourselves, I still believe that there's a large difference between refusing to serve someone because they are gay and refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. 

In one you refuse service because they're gay, in the other you refuse service because they are gay... but with cake.

[BmorePat87]

(08-23-2015, 11:59 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Ridiculous. 

If a Christian baker makes it obvious that they object to SSM, I'd say that it would be clear what they are objecting to.

Yes, they're objecting to gay people getting married. If they were straight, they would not object. Therefore, they are discriminating against them because they are gay.

Quote:Further, if people and government would stop interfering in private business, none of this stuff would matter to begin with.

Business has been regulated since the foundation of this country.

Quote:What purpose is behind a gay couple going to a Christian baker for a wedding cake for to begin with?  Wouldn't be targeting, would it?  

Because the majority of this country self identifies as Christian, so it's safe to assume that the majority of bakers are Christians. That and they want a cake for the wedding because that's a thing that you have at weddings...

Quote:I'm pretty wore out on the entire victimhood game that liberals are always looking to play and claim.  

Then people should stop victimizing others, I guess. 

Quote:If someone doesn't want my business, fine with me.  I couldn't care less what the reason is.  

That's fine, but depending on the reason, it may be illegal. 

Quote:Grow up and get over yourselves.  

This is a very intelligent response to me questioning your flawed logic (sarcasm). I guess that's why you didn't address it and just went on a whiny rant. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2015, 10:34 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Is it possible to prove that someone is using religion to discriminate?  No, it isn't.  If that were the grounds for a lawsuit, it would never see a courtroom. 

Sure it would, and it would get thrown out/shot down. Just as it has because they have been unable to prove an undue burden on their right to the free exercise of religion.

[jakefromstatefarm]

Quote:Yes, they're objecting to gay people getting married. If they were straight, they would not object. Therefore, they are discriminating against them because they are gay.

In my hypothetical, if they were gay and wanted a birthday cake they wouldn't object.  Therefore, they are discriminating against the wedding.  

Quote:Business has been regulated since the foundation of this country.

Great.  Should be easy to highlight an example of when a 18th century private business was forced to serve someone.  

Quote:Because the majority of this country self identifies as Christian, so it's safe to assume that the majority of bakers are Christians. That and they want a cake for the wedding because that's a thing that you have at weddings...

Oh yeah, that's it.  Wouldn't be that the gay couple had an agenda and specifically targeted a faith-based baker, right?  

Quote:Then people should stop victimizing others, I guess. 

Who is being victimized?  The gay couple that had to go to one of probably thousands of other places in order to get a wedding cake, or the Christian baker that was sued and lost and in the future has to make things that they religiously and morally object to?  And of course, all of this was done in the name of "tolerance", which is progressive speak for "our way or the highway".

Quote:This is a very intelligent response to me questioning your flawed logic (sarcasm). I guess that's why you didn't address it and just went on a whiny rant. 

[/quote]

I was speaking in general, but if the shoe fits, wear that shit.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 12:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sure it would, and it would get thrown out/shot down. Just as it has because they have been unable to prove an undue burden on their right to the free exercise of religion.

That's more the result of having the majority of SC justices that prefer to interpret law to fit their own personal ideology and biases rather than following the constitution as written. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-23-2015, 12:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sure it would, and it would get thrown out/shot down. Just as it has because they have been unable to prove an undue burden on their right to the free exercise of religion.

Can same sex folks get married if a Christian refuses to bake their Wedding Cake?

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2015, 12:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: In my hypothetical, if they were gay and wanted a birthday cake they wouldn't object.  Therefore, they are discriminating against the wedding.  

Except they would do wedding cakes for other weddings, right? So they are discriminating because the couple is gay.

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2015, 12:40 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: That's more the result of having the majority of SC justices that prefer to interpret law to fit their own personal ideology and biases rather than following the constitution as written. 

Not just SC, but on other levels and from all across the spectrum.

(08-23-2015, 12:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can same sex folks get married if a Christian refuses to bake their Wedding Cake?

Yes, but I am not arguing the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws, of which I against. Merely showing why under the current law the decisions are correct.