Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[Mycroft]

Straw man - the only "argument" you have, apparently. A hospital is not falling under a privately owned business in this case, along with health insurance and such. In fact a hospital is required by law to treat you.

I'd love to continue but I hate straw men more than any fallacy. You PM me if you ever want to get on topic.

You seem to cry straw man whenever you don't want to supply an answer to the question.

 

[1137]

You seem to cry straw man whenever you don't want to supply an answer to the question.

I did supply an answer to your question

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wow I was being sarcastic. Don't get angry with me just because you can't understand the irony and hypocracy of your position. My point was to try and show you that your position says "these people should have freedom to live their lifestyle, but these other people shouldn't". THAT is what Jim Crow laws were all about. You want the government to force people - against their deeply held religious or ethical beliefs - to be submissive and participate in things they do not want to do. You believe that homosexuals should have the right to be who they are openly, but not people against homosexuality. You want to force African American business owners to politely serve Klan members an deny them their freedom to choose to lose THEIR OWN PROFITS and to choose who they do or do not serve IN THEIR OWN BUILDING. This is where Jim Crow laws stem from - belief that one group is more entitled to free rights than others - which is what you're supporting.

And you don't even realize it. Absolutely pathetic.

The problem with your take on it is that the logical conclusion can lead to chaos. If anyone can refuse service to anyone based on whatever personal issue they have, then how does this not create a bigger problem than what you had in the first place? Either you allow everyone to discriminate in their business practices for any reason and it leads all sorts of unnecessary nonsense and chaos or you don't allow people to discriminate in their business practices and everyone gets on with their lives. Yes, that means that you might have to serve someone whose views you think are abhorrent, same for hiring or working with someone. That's life. Sometimes you have to grow up and deal with it; you're not always going to be surrounded by people who think exactly like you. If you wish to create a cocoon from the real world around yourself, do it in your own home and leave it there when you step outside.

So, no - I don't feel bad for the homophobic moron who refuses to bake a cake or take a wedding photo for a gay couple or the hypothetical Jew who has to make a sandwich for a neo-Nazi at a deli or the racist owner of a small business who doesn't want to hire a person of a different race. I don't feel bad for them. When you work with the public, you're just going to have to deal with those kinds of things.

(My comments aren't directed personally to you, but are in general.)

 

[1137]

The problem with your take on it is that the logical conclusion can lead to chaos. If anyone can refuse service to anyone based on whatever personal issue they have, then how does this not create a bigger problem than what you had in the first place? Either you allow everyone to discriminate in their business practices for any reason and it leads all sorts of unnecessary nonsense and chaos or you don't allow people to discriminate in their business practices and everyone gets on with their lives. Yes, that means that you might have to serve someone whose views you think are abhorrent, same for hiring or working with someone. That's life. Sometimes you have to grow up and deal with it; you're not always going to be surrounded by people who think exactly like you. If you wish to create a cocoon from the real world around yourself, do it in your own home and leave it there when you step outside.

So, no - I don't feel bad for the homophobic moron who refuses to bake a cake or take a wedding photo for a gay couple or the hypothetical Jew who has to make a sandwich for a neo-Nazi at a deli or the racist owner of a small business who doesn't want to hire a person of a different race. I don't feel bad for them. When you work with the public, you're just going to have to deal with those kinds of things.

(My comments aren't directed personally to you, but are in general.)

Reminds me of Assassin's Creed. Freedom that comes with chaos or totalitarianism that comes with peace. Here I'm an Assassin and you're a Templar. I certainly agree that "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither",

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Reminds me of Assassin's Creed. Freedom that comes with chaos or totalitarianism that comes with peace. Here I'm an Assassin and you're a Templar. I certainly agree that "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither",

Lol. That's not what this is about. You can believe whatever you like in your own time. You can join neo-Nazi groups, anti-gay groups, anti-neo-Nazi groups, etc. But when it comes to interacting with the public, there should be some baseline rules that we all agree to and one of them should be that we treat people equally, no matter if we personally dislike a person. It really is that simple.

 

[1137]

Lol. That's not what this is about. You can believe whatever you like in your own time. You can join neo-Nazi groups, anti-gay groups, anti-neo-Nazi groups, etc. But when it comes to interacting with the public, there should be some baseline rules that we all agree to and one of them should be that we treat people equally, no matter if we personally dislike a person. It really is that simple.

But a business you personally own is you own time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But a business you personally own is you own time.

Not when you're serving the public at large by providing a service.

Tell me, Doors, would you have supported this in the segregated South?

 

[1137]

Not when you're serving the public at large by providing a service.

Tell me, Doors, would you have supported this in the segregated South?

Supported? No. Supported the right? Yes. The problem with comparing these laws with the old south - besides being almost entirely different - is it wasn't just about private businesses. The government discriminated. Now yeah there's been government discrimination against homosexuals, but not only is it getting better and not involving lynching, the bill is targeting nobody. It is to protect ALL business owners.

If a privately owned business wants to refuse me service then I support their right to. They're the ones losing money so they suffer too, the same right is protected for me, etc. That is fair. Would it be better if everyone just stopped being bigotted - yes of course. But welcome to real life. I don't want America to be fascist, and I'd rather have chaos and independence than peace and enslavement to government.

We are talking in circles in this point, and I was tired of the debate before AZ voted it. If people want a country where certain groups have more rights than other groups then there are PLENTY of places to go.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Supported? No. Supported the right? Yes. The problem with comparing these laws with the old south - besides being almost entirely different - is it wasn't just about private businesses. The government discriminated. Now yeah there's been government discrimination against homosexuals, but not only is it getting better and not involving lynching, the bill is targeting nobody. It is to protect ALL business owners.

If a privately owned business wants to refuse me service then I support their right to. They're the ones losing money so they suffer too, the same right is protected for me, etc. That is fair. Would it be better if everyone just stopped being bigotted - yes of course. But welcome to real life. I don't want America to be fascist, and I'd rather have chaos and independence than peace and enslavement to government.

We are talking in circles in this point, and I was tired of the debate before AZ voted it. If people want a country where certain groups have more rights than other groups then there are PLENTY of places to go.

I bring that up as an example because that is where that could lead if laws such as this are successful. It would lead to a form of government-sanctioned segregation. It's quite easy to connect the dots on this one.

Framing this as a fight against government tyranny isn't the best way to look at it. It's more about not allowing others to infringe on the rights of others by discriminating against them for illogical reasons. I have the right as a paying customer to eat at a restaurant and not be refused service because I'm brown, I'm trans, I'm queer or I'm this, that and the other thing. They have the right to take my money, make me food and treat me as a guest in their establishment and to expect me to be respectful while I'm there. Isn't that the point of a business in the first place?

It's the government's job to enforce laws that protect the rights of citizens, especially the rights of minorities and the disenfranchised and disadvantaged who are the most vulnerable. Because let's face it, it's not white, hetero Christians who are the most at risk for mistreatment in this society.

I do not want a society that is veering back towards pre-Civil Rights days. If it goes that way, then what did human rights activists fight for? What did those people bleed, get police dogs sicced on them, get thrown in jail and die for? Their struggle would've been in vain and we can shelve the whole dream of inclusive democracy and continue being petty morons as America rots and splinters off into a million different mini-nations. We have more important things to worry about than whether some ********* store owner can refuse service to the gays, or the blacks, or the Mexicans, or fat people or whoever else they deem less than worthy.

 

[1137]

It's a slippery slope both ways, I'd rather have it this way than a government in absolute power.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's a slippery slope both ways, I'd rather have it this way than a government in absolute power.

Who is supporting having a government in absolute power? You want to say it goes both ways, well it goes both ways on that, too. The bigots want the government in their pocket so they can avoid lawsuits after mistreating people. "See? The law says I'm allowed to discriminate against you because of my sincerely held beliefs! I really do hate you and have hated people like you for many years! There's the proof of my sincerity!".

It's government approved hatred. As a member of many minority and disadvantaged groups, it's only natural that I'm going to despise the government saying that those who provide services to the public have the right to treat me as less than human and that I should just **** and enjoy my dehumanization.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's Even funnier with AZ because AZ is a right to work state

I'm not sure if "right to work" means what you think it means:

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sees]

If any laws open up avenues for you to now practice discrimination religiously - time to double-check/second-guess your crap religion

Of course, no offense :angel2:

 

[Drolefille]

But to the cake maker it may be seen as a horrible sin on their behalf. I don't understand how you can be fine with forcing an Jew to serve a Nazi but can't respect a homophobic cake-maker's deeply held religious beliefs. Your position on this makes absolutely no sense.

No, it's completely consistent. It requires business owners who serve the public to serve the public regardless of the who the public are.

I don't understand the homophobic cake-maker's supposed deeply held beliefs because I typically find them to be capricious, inconsistent and hypocritical, but they can still hold them.

Oh, c'mon. I think you're smarter than this but if this the kind of response you are going to make I won't even bother.

You basically omitted everything else there that went into more depth and detail.

I would respect the right of a pastor to not perform a religious ceremony for a gay couple. That's based on the tenets of their religion whether it's allowed, similarly we don't force Catholic Priests to marry a Hindu couple. I don't support allowing a judge to make those same distinctions as they're government officials.

But we're talking about cake... where is the sin in selling a cake, and why does it only come up when it's a gay couple and not in any other situation?
I'm not playing dumb, I grew up Catholic, and even at my most devout would not have had problems waiting tables for a conservative Christian who thinks Catholics are going to hell, or a gay couple or anything in between.

I'm not sure if "right to work" means what you think it means:

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mentioned that to no avail.

 

[Mycroft]

I would also go as far as to say that people do not have the right to bigotry, discrimination, hatred and all that stuff in commerce, industry and economical circles anymore. Since freedom does not, and has never existed anyway, perhaps it's time to redress the idea of 'freedom to...' or 'right to...'

 

[nazz]

Except this isn't promoting freedom. It's a misappropriation of the word to suit a political agenda.

I strongly disagree. And I believe if the shoe were on the other foot those complaining about this law would be the first to champion it.

 

[Mycroft]

I strongly disagree. And I believe if the shoe were on the other foot those complaining about this law would be the first to champion it.

No, I would be against the discrimination of the religious set as vehemently as this.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think you're taking the term freedom to it's extreme conclusion. Freedom does exist the question is more of should we acknowledge the rights of the oppressors of the rights of the oppressed.

 

[Mycroft]

I think you're taking the term freedom to it's extreme conclusion. Freedom does exist the question is more of should we acknowledge the rights of the oppressors of the rights of the oppressed.

If you try to have more than one wife in America, what would happen to you?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If you try to have more than one wife in America, what would happen to you?

Again the extremes is what you're going for. Mind you there are aeveral reasons why you can't take more than one wife that results in the persons freedom
Being acted against.

To say freedom doesn't exist isn't true but we certainly aren't granted absolute freedom.