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.
Let me try to explain a little more about my prediction Petunia.
It isn't so much the homosexuals getting married that bothers the Religious. It is the government trying to tell them that they have to knowingly do something, something that goes against their beliefs, that will be part of the ceremony and/or celebration of it...and if they don't, they will be legally sanctioned by a fine or shut-down, or some other penalty.
You don't have to "take away anyone's religion" to cause the conflict.
Tell some devout Muslim guy that owns a restaurant "you won't take away his religion", he can keep his Islamic faith...but you LEGALLY DEMAND that he sell pork,
No one has demanded that anyone sell anything. The bakers freely choose to sell wedding cakes to the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
or let his wife and daughter go out of the house, not only without proper faith-conforming dress and headscarves, but in shorts and a crop top. Tell him, "It's now THE LAW", and if he doesn't do or allow those things...you will fine him over a hundred thousand dollars or shut him down.
Do you think that since you are "still allowing him to keep his religion"...that he will be okay with those legal requirements?
His wife is not his property, nor is he in the business of being a family. Comparing a man's personal life to a business open to the public does not illustrate any point at all. Government regulates commerce, not the private lives of individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
As of now...the the very great majority of people that have been hassled about their refusal to do things that go against their religious beliefs are people that are nonmilitant. But eventually, they are gonna try to dictate these ordinances to the wrong people...and it will be like a snowball rolling downhill.
Mmmkay. Well, religious beliefs do not exempt one from following the law. Personally, I think that is as it should be. Also, I find these vague threats to be absurd. Really? Law-abiding citizens should forget about their own personal rights in order to not upset the "wrong people"? Are you willing to give up your rights? If not, why should other people?
Who's law? What law? When, where?
I aced "Business Law" in college. I, II and Corporate Law!
Most laws aren't needed...and are nothing but the arbitrary personal opinions of the drafters/legislators presented as code or edict.
How about I say...It is logical that I determine that it's "right" to look to the best advantage for myself and my family? Sounds "logical and reasonable" doesn't it? A kind of "Legal Darwinism"
Based on that, I should just do whatever I can to further my and my families' position. Including exploiting or subjugating anyone and anything, in any way I can, to achieve that end. After all, many cultures, groups, civilizations, etc., past and present, have seen this as morally acceptable...even legal. Slavery has been viewed as legal and morally acceptable by most of the cultures and civilizations in human history. Subjugation of women has been the legal and moral "norm" throughout human history, and continues in many cultures today. "Conquest" has been the standard a lot longer than the present global system.
So who's/what "legal compass" do we go by? Your's, mine, the US laws in 2015, the US laws in 1710, the Middle East in 2015, Rome in 2015, Rome 2000 yrs ago, the penal code of any random country of choosing, what Hitler thought should be legal, what Gandhi thought should be legal...how about Gen Custer, how about Sitting Bull, how about my/your/whoevers' Grandmother, etc, etc, etc?
Since what man has considered "legal" varies so much from person to person, place to place, culture to culture, time to time, and situation to situation...using any secular code cannot possibly ever be purely "logical and/or reasonable".
So...there is no such thing as a "Course on Basic Law" that has any true merit.
It is this "US against THEM" mentality that is at the core of the problem. With each relishing the other side "getting their medicine" or "getting their teeth handed to them", for what ever reason they feel they should.
It's "hate" going both ways. Don't you see that?
You are trying to fight hate with hate...and that is a futile effort. You just get more hate.
If I go into a place where they don't want me or my business...I'm outta there! I'm not gonna sweat it for even a second. Another place will accept me and/or my patronage.
Being in the porn business for thirty years has gotten me a big dose of just what is being discussed. I am involved in all genres of the industry...print, video, and live. The print and video work is not very high profile for me...but the live porn is a stripclub I own, so there I am as the owner if front of everyone.
I've gone to places where people that took exception to what I do and how I am, called the shots. I've been refused service, told to leave, told I was a "scumbag", told that "people like me ruin the world". I even had a guy spit right in my face at a barber shop...and he even called my Mother to tell her how terrible he thought I was! His daughter had come in looking for work...and I gave her work. Instead of retaliating...I actually understood his position. I wouldn't like me either if I was him. So, I just shrugged it off and walked away. I certainly have the resources to take these people to legal task...but I don't. Why waste my time? I won't change what either one of us think of each other at all.
You can't please everyone. And even more so...you can't make people to do or think, what they refuse to do or think...unless you wanna resort to force, then you can usually get some compliance of conduct.
Legal sanctions typically fans the flames...it will rarely cool it off.
It's fine if you choose not to pursue this illegal act, but that is your choice. The customers of Sweet Cakes by Melissa made a different choice, and that is fine too.
Who's law? What law? When, where?
I aced "Business Law" in college. I, II and Corporate Law!
Most laws aren't needed...and are nothing but the arbitrary personal opinions of the drafters/legislators presented as code or edict.
How about I say...It is logical that I determine that it's "right" to look to the best advantage for myself and my family? Sounds "logical and reasonable" doesn't it? A kind of "Legal Darwinism"
Based on that, I should just do whatever I can to further my and my families' position. Including exploiting or subjugating anyone and anything, in any way I can, to achieve that end. After all, many cultures, groups, civilizations, etc., past and present, have seen this as morally acceptable...even legal. Slavery has been viewed as legal and morally acceptable by most of the cultures and civilizations in human history. Subjugation of women has been the legal and moral "norm" throughout human history, and continues in many cultures today. "Conquest" has been the standard a lot longer than the present global system.
So who's/what "legal compass" do we go by? Your's, mine, the US laws in 2015, the US laws in 1710, the Middle East in 2015, Rome in 2015, Rome 2000 yrs ago, the penal code of any random country of choosing, what Hitler thought should be legal, what Gandhi thought should be legal...how about Gen Custer, how about Sitting Bull, how about my/your/whoevers' Grandmother, etc, etc, etc?
Since what man has considered "legal" varies so much from person to person, place to place, culture to culture, time to time, and situation to situation...using any secular code cannot possibly ever be purely "logical and/or reasonable".
So...there is no such thing as a "Course on Basic Law" that has any true merit.
Is this supposed to be logical?
Obviously, we go by our own laws. What US laws in 1710 are you referring to? There was no US in 1710.
Who's law? What law? When, where?
I aced "Business Law" in college. I, II and Corporate Law!
Most laws aren't needed...and are nothing but the arbitrary personal opinions of the drafters/legislators presented as code or edict.
How about I say...It is logical that I determine that it's "right" to look to the best advantage for myself and my family? Sounds "logical and reasonable" doesn't it? A kind of "Legal Darwinism"
Based on that, I should just do whatever I can to further my and my families' position. Including exploiting or subjugating anyone and anything, in any way I can, to achieve that end. After all, many cultures, groups, civilizations, etc., past and present, have seen this as morally acceptable...even legal. Slavery has been viewed as legal and morally acceptable by most of the cultures and civilizations in human history. Subjugation of women has been the legal and moral "norm" throughout human history, and continues in many cultures today. "Conquest" has been the standard a lot longer than the present global system.
So who's/what "legal compass" do we go by? Your's, mine, the US laws in 2015, the US laws in 1710, the Middle East in 2015, Rome in 2015, Rome 2000 yrs ago, the penal code of any random country of choosing, what Hitler thought should be legal, what Gandhi thought should be legal...how about Gen Custer, how about Sitting Bull, how about my/your/whoevers' Grandmother, etc, etc, etc?
Since what man has considered "legal" varies so much from person to person, place to place, culture to culture, time to time, and situation to situation...using any secular code cannot possibly ever be purely "logical and/or reasonable".
So...there is no such thing as a "Course on Basic Law" that has any true merit.
Why the hell are you babbling? Wow, are you ever off course..No GPS huh?..Since you live in the US in 2015, I would suggest that you follow the civil laws that apply today in your country....Remember ignorance of the law is not an excuse to disregard it, as Sweetcakes did.
No one has demanded that anyone sell anything. The bakers freely choose to sell wedding cakes to the public.
And, IMO, they should have the right to sell who they chose, just like people buy from who they chose ...and let the marketplace sort it out.
Quote:
His wife is not his property, nor is he in the business of being a family. Comparing a man's personal life to a business open to the public does not illustrate any point at all. Government regulates commerce, not the private lives of individuals.
Laws regulate both business and personal. My point was that just because one can still "keep their religion"...if laws are made that compel one to violate what they interpret as the edicts of that particular faith...that they get to "keep their religion" doesn't matter.
You cannot legally control ones beliefs, only their conduct. People will believe what they believe regardless of The Law.
Quote:
Mmmkay. Well, religious beliefs do not exempt one from following the law. Personally, I think that is as it should be. Also, I find these vague threats to be absurd. Really? Law-abiding citizens should forget about their own personal rights in order to not upset the "wrong people"? Are you willing to give up your rights? If not, why should other people?
Here, this is for you too:
As typical...people will cite "the law" (in this case "anti discrimination" law) as the ultimate arbiter of "what you can or can't do".
How is "the law" a good arbiter? If we want to tout "the law"..."the law" in the USA actually sanctioned discrimination for much more time than it did not. For example: Women just recently just gained the right to vote...for hundreds of years they couldn't.
So, what law was "right"? The one we had for most of the time...or the one we have now?
Was it a reasonable argument for people to just say to women: "If you are a woman you must follow the anti female voting laws."? Did that make it right, because it was "the law"?
You only must follow the law to avoid legal sanctions...not necessarily to do what is or isn't "right".
Just because the government has made laws of this nature doesn't mean that necessarily makes it "right".
What about the places where the law says the opposite of that? Does that make it "right" just because "the law" allows it as legal in those places?
By that logic slavery and "Jim Crow" was "right", when it was legal.
Do you now see how simply stating, "It's the law!", is not at all a meritorious argument?
That they equate things that are immutable like what race you are, what country you were born in, or whether you are male or female...with things that people can (and do) switch up like what theology they claim to endorse or what gender they claim to be attracted to and/or have intercourse with, just shows how ill-thought those laws are.
These types of laws ( anti-discrimination) are very new...and just a few decades old.
How long did this country legally allow blacks to be held as slaves or be discriminated against?
How long did this country legally deny women the right to vote compared to how long they have allowed it.
The USA is the "poster child" for gender & race discrimination and oppression...and only VERY recently enacted laws that said anything different. Which would figure, because the "Founding Documents" were written by dudes that were genocidal, gender oppressing, slavemasters...that wrote about how "all people are equal", but sanctioned ordinances and regulations, and conducted themselves personally, exactly opposite of what they wrote about "equality for all". This world has never known people that were more full of it than that crew!
As far as "The Law" goes: The U.S. Constitution says that the government, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So then, what are they doing making laws respecting those things?
If there is supposed to be a, "wall of separation between church and state"...then keep it completely separate. The government shouldn't even be dealing with these issues in any way what-so-ever. "Separate" is separate...so stay out of it.
The only way for true freedom in the marketplace...is to let both the Buyers and the Sellers freely choose who they will do business with.
The messed up way they have it now: Buyers can discriminate (and need not declare why, or even that they did) against Sellers and decide for any reason what Sellers they will or will not buy from...but Sellers are forced to sell to all Buyers. So it's STILL discrimination...of Buyers over Sellers. These "anti discrimination laws" are themselves discriminatory...and violate the laws of "equal protection" on their face.
A person who discriminates against particular people can walk into a business intending to buy...but then, upon gaining knowledge that ownership consists of those that they don't prefer, can actively discriminate and turn around and walk out without buying. How come the "anti discrimination laws" don't force them to buy? Why should the ownership (The Sellers) be forced to sell to anybody...but The Buyers can pick and choose who they do business with? How is that fair and equal? Buyers can legally discriminate but Sellers can't? THAT is discrimination. THAT is not "equal".
Neither should have to do business with the other for any reason whatsoever.
Same with with the workforce. An employer must hire anybody...but the employee gets to pick and choose who they will work for? How "equal" is that?
Let "the market" sort it all out. THAT is the ONLY truly fair and equal way.
People only cheer what is "legal" if it supports the position they prefer. Otherwise, they claim the law is bogus. In my opinion: It's ALL bogus.
Bottom Line: We can claim we have "rights"...but we really don't. Matter of fact...I don't even have the right to my life, if one of the other 7 Billion people on this planet decides I don't, and they are determined enough.
All this "GOTCHA" stuff must stop...or it's gonna get really ugly.
Why the hell are you babbling? Wow, are you ever off course..No GPS huh?..Since you live in the US in 2015, I would suggest that you follow the civil laws that apply today in your country....Remember ignorance of the law is not an excuse to disregard it, as Sweetcakes did.
Oh, come on sans. People break lots of laws they are fully aware of.
How many automobile operators NEVER break any of the traffic laws...that they KNOW exist? How about 00.001%!
Some refer to the religious as "sheeple"...because of the way they follow the arbitrary religious laws.
I feel the same way about the secular codes that I do about the religious codes. I'll conform to the degree I choose to based on my own "risk verses desire & perceived rewards" system.
You, though...are free to toe every line your government says you should.
You're such a "Good Boy" sans! Get your lollipop on the way out!
I haven't conversed with you for quite awhile Golden and I'm concerned...Are you ok? Your posts lately seem very confused and make very little sense...
The bottom line is the law says if a business offers a product for sale they cannot refuse to sell it to any person based on their sex, color or religion..... The buyer is, and has always been free to choose to buy it or not....My 4 year old grandaughter knows how this works, why don't you?
Oh, come on sans. People break lots of laws they are fully aware of.
How many automobile operators NEVER break any of the traffic laws...that they KNOW exist? How about 00.001%!
Some refer to the religious as "sheeple"...because of the way they follow the arbitrary religious laws.
I feel the same way about the secular codes that I do about the religious codes. I'll conform to the degree I choose to based on my own "risk verses desire & perceived rewards" system.
You, though...are free to toe every line your government says you should.
You're such a "Good Boy" sans! Get your lollipop on the way out!
Did I say that I've never broken any laws? I've broken laws and I've paid the price, but I certainly didn't snivel and whine about it........When you decide to break a law you risk getting caught and paying the penalty....That is exactly what Sweetcakes did....They put those two women and their children at risk, and got caught, but I wouldn't worry too much about them if I were you, as other anti gay bigots have bailed them out.
Is this supposed to be logical? Obviously, we go by our own laws.
Is that what we all should do...just go by our own laws, whenever and wherever? And you feel that is what is "right"?
By that logic, slavery was cool...so was females not voting. Hey...that was THE LAW! And, obviously...we go by our own laws.
The Afghan dude beating his wife half to death because he feels she "disrespected" him---ALL GOOD! The woman shouldn't protest either...because, it's THE LAW there...and, obviously, she should go by their own laws.
Quote:
What US laws in 1710 are you referring to? There was no US in 1710.
I'm sure you know what I meant.
The early settlements in what is now the United States had lots of laws. Most based upon religious ethics and codes.
Oh, and, I guess you must think all those laws were just great...since they were the laws at the time...and, obviously, you go by your own laws.
I SUBMIT: Laws typically don't mean squat as to what is "right", "fair", or "equal".
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.
