Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you have a link that states what you are stating as far as your first paragraph.
A link? You mean fifty years of jurisprudence regarding the implementation of civil rights legislation isn't good enough. You need a link that shows my words were copy and pasted from some source, and presumably you'd then attack the source instead rather than admit the ludicrous nature of what you you're working so hard to blind yourself to. No, sorry. I don't play those childish games anymore. Do a little bit of work to educate yourself. Start here:
And, you are wrong. On the basic of being allowed to follow their religion which states again and again that a marriage is between a man and a woman, they must make a choice between being politically correct or following the laws of their God.
Treating other people fairly and justly isn't political correctness. It is maturity. It is courtesy. And it is the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Winning just means that the law agrees
Which is the context within which we were discussing. Beyond the law, the ethic of reciprocity is more than sufficient to condemn the unjust discrimination I've condemned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
A t-shirt company refused to print custom shirts for a gay pride parade. I'm quite sure they never before printed a shirt with that same design and content.
"The evidence of record also support a finding that Mr. Adamson intended to refuse the order prior to learning the design of the shirt." So it wasn't the design and content that he objected to - it was shown in court that his motivation was the sexual orientation of the patrons.
Which is the context within which we were discussing. Beyond the law, the ethic of reciprocity is more than sufficient to condemn the unjust discrimination I've condemned.
No it is not the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The contention that baking a cake for a gay wedding somehow involves the baker in the wedding itself is foolishness, unless we are going to hold gun dealers responsible as accessories to murder for murders committed with guns they legally sell.
Apparently the families of Sandy Hook who are suing Bushmaster didn't get your memo on not holding gun dealers responsible. They are holding them responsible, whether or not the courts hold them responsible is yet to be determined, responsibility and legal liability are two entirely different things. Suppose you run over my cat, you never knew the cat was there, legally there's no liability for running over that cat, that does not mean I do not hold you responsible.
The ethic of reciprocity I've found is always wheeled out when someone believes they're badly done to, but rarely wheeled out when a person is behaving badly.
"One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself"
"One should not treat others as one would not wish to be treated."
In this instance the golden rule is applied negatively, others should not do X as I would not wish X to be done to me. However the question remains should we force people to not do X, couldn't that violate the ethic of reciprocity as you youself would not wish to be forced to do something against your will, morals or ethics?
"The evidence of record also support a finding that Mr. Adamson intended to refuse the order prior to learning the design of the shirt." So it wasn't the design and content that he objected to - it was shown in court that his motivation was the sexual orientation of the patrons.
He knew it was going to say Lexington Pride Parade. He had never before printed a shirt that said that. Under your own rationale, he should not have been required to sell a product he'd never sold before.
He would not have sold that shirt to anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. for the purpose of advocating pride in being gay. He's being punished for refusing to engage in speech. Unfortunately, our whacky courts have decided the 1st Amendment right to engage in or refrain from speech takes a back seat to a t-shirt.
Why do some people obsess so much over homosexuality? What is so striking with the fascination for it?
Maybe they don't really HATE it as much as they claim.... They should come out and enjoy the party, those feelings are not going to change, no matter how much they scream the hate.
I'm just waiting for the people to pop out crying that this was a double standard . Anyway, I didn't think this guy had much of a case here.
I don't think people should be forced to do something they are not comfortable doing. Christians should not be forced to do things they believe are wrong in the eyes of their God, and gay bakeries should not be forced to bake anything they are not comfortable baking. It's really that simple.
BUT your group wants to BAN same-sex marriage using a religious standing ....
Not at all true. SOME people who exercise SOME religions or denominations thereof wish to exercise their guaranteed First Amendment right to the freedom to exercise their religion.
BUT your group wants to BAN same-sex marriage using a religious standing ....
No one is being preventing from practicing whatever religion.
Being forced by law to contribute to an activity or event that violates your religious beliefs is prohibiting you from free exercise of religion -- its basically picking and choosing what parts of your religion you get to exercise.
So yes, these individuals are having their First Amendment rights violated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Anyway, I didn't think this guy had much of a case here.