Originally posted by dadudemonI can understand the point you trying to make. I don't believe it though. Some of society is forcing morals unto people.
I'll never agree that it is a good idea to force businesses to do business with people that they do not want to do business with. That's very shitty to force your morals and beliefs on people.*That's no different than me forcing you to get baptized as a Mormon because I believe it is morally correct and it is an action/behavior that you should be expected to do. Oh, what's that? You don't like me forcing my moral beliefs on you? Too bad! Now that the politically correct police are on my side, we will rape you in the public opinion forum, verbally, until you submit to our will. Line up for your baptisms. And let me remind you, you have to get baptized as a Mormon several times a month. Even if you personally believe that Mormons are satanic and by getting baptized as a Mormon, you are directly offending God, too bad! The politically correct thought police want you to go f*ck yourself and do this because there are enough vocal supporters of it. It's just despicable that you guys want to resist this. It's clearly morally wrong that you refuse to get baptized as a Mormon. Everyone knows that getting baptized as a Mormon is the correct thing to do. It will prevent you from offending your friends, family, and coworkers. You don't want to look like a close-minded bigot, right? So come get your Mormon baptisms while the water is hot!
Forcing people to do things against their will is one of the worst things we can do to each other. It would be different if you were forcing them to stop doing something. This is not. This is forcing them to DO something. "But, dadudemon, doesn't that mean a doctor can refuse to treat a Jew and then the Jew dies due to the Doctor's refusal to help? How can you possibly reconcile this with your statements that people should not be forced to do things against their will?" You can either accept the fact that you're a shitty person for wanting to force your beliefs and behavioral actions on people or you can select extremely rare scenarios that almost never ever happen to justify your shittiness. With the ability to let people chose for themselves comes the very cold reality that some people will choose something that you don't like.
"dadudemon is just salty." Just because I'm pointing out the absurd hypocrisy of this entire discussion does not mean I'm salty. 😉
Edit - I wish there were more people who valued personal freedom over legislated beliefs/morals/behaviors, on this forum. For me, I find it ridiculous that I even have to make these arguments. There are almost no religious people on this forum. The only people I know that make my kind of arguments are atheists who oppose religion. It should be obvious as to why they make my arguments: when you start legislating morals/behaviors/beliefs, it's a slippery slope. What happens if the majority of Americans are now Muslims and they are the vocal majority? What happens if they want Sharia Law? Now what? Where are you gay-cake arguments, now? Maybe it's not such a good idea to legislate and force people to do things against their beliefs and against their will, eh? Well, it's too late: you already set a precedence with your gay-cakes. This is why atheists are the only ones making my arguments. I have never heard a Christian or Jew make my particular arguments (agreeing with my conclusion, that people shouldn't be forced to serve gay-couples if they don't want to, is not the same thing as making my argument).
*Ushgarak made a good argument against that (but I will address it with a lengthy video on Sunday** because it will take forever to put that together) by saying that we had to force people to stop being racist f*cks.
** We all know I'm a procrastinating bastard and it won't happen on Sunday. But if it does, it's just a pleasant surprise. I still owe inimalist a video from 2008.
For instance I want you to listen to this phrase.
"I want to go kill someone. Wait you're telling me I can't. Stop trying to force your morals on me I don't think it's wrong therefore I should be allowed to do it."
Or
"Hey I don't see anything wrong with serving people the rats I kill as food stop trying to regulate my business just let me run it the way I want to."
I would highly doubt you would agree with the those statements. The truth is we as a society have to agree with what we think is wrong and be willing to say we won't allow it.
Discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, race, sex, and nationality is something most of us has decided is wrong and is something we want to eliminate.
Allowing businesses to discriminate based on those things can not be allowed if we say we are going to treat those groups as equals.
The thing I think people are not getting. Why people are so against this is that we have decided that people are equal under the law and equal in terms of rights given by our government. Allowing businesses to legally discriminate against a law abiding citizen based on one of the above criteria undermines that basic principle.
There should be no reason a law abiding lgbt person should not be allowed to buy a cake from that store. The only reason they are not allowed is because of a person's bigoted ways.
Now I understand that person has sold cakes to gay people in the past and they only chose not to do this because it was for a wedding but is still just as bad. Your basically saying you don't recognize those people's right to marry or saying that it is wrong even though they should be equal under the law.
That kind of thinking should not be praised or supported by law.
Originally posted by Newjak
I can understand the point you trying to make. I don't believe it though. Some of society is forcing morals unto people.For instance I want you to listen to this phrase.
"I want to go kill someone. Wait you're telling me I can't. Stop trying to force your morals on me I don't think it's wrong therefore I should be allowed to do it."Or
"Hey I don't see anything wrong with serving people the rats I kill as food stop trying to regulate my business just let me run it the way I want to."
I would highly doubt you would agree with the those statements. The truth is we as a society have to agree with what we think is wrong and be willing to say we won't allow it.
Discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, race, sex, and nationality is something most of us has decided is wrong and is something we want to eliminate.
Allowing businesses to discriminate based on those things can not be allowed if we say we are going to treat those groups as equals.
The thing I think people are not getting. Why people are so against this is that we have decided that people are equal under the law and equal in terms of rights given by our government. Allowing businesses to legally discriminate against a law abiding citizen based on one of the above criteria undermines that basic principle.
There should be no reason a law abiding lgbt person should not be allowed to buy a cake from that store. The only reason they are not allowed is because of a person's bigoted ways.
Now I understand that person has sold cakes to gay people in the past and they only chose not to do this because it was for a wedding but is still just as bad. Your basically saying you don't recognize those people's right to marry or saying that it is wrong even though they should be equal under the law.
That kind of thinking should not be praised or supported by law.
I addressed your angle, already, in that post your quoted:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Forcing people to do things against their will is one of the worst things we can do to each other. It would be different if you were forcing them to stop doing something. This is not. This is forcing them to DO something.
Also, I addressed your angle in my first post on this topic, as well:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Are those people that are potentially going to get discriminated against, getting physically harmed or getting their possessions/livelihood taken from them? No?
While you feel it is okay to force people to do things because you believe it is morally acceptable to force people to do things, that does not mean it is morally right when placed under scrutiny and a lens. When you start forcing people to do things that you believe are right, we end up in quite big messes.
I'm all for outlawing actions and behaviors that cause physical or financial harm to others. That's okay. That's stopping harmful action, x. But I am not okay with forcing people to do actions that are against their personal beliefs.
The best argument against my position is forcing a parent to take care of their child. What if the parent believes all children should take care of themselves?
I am okay with arguing with myself but it gets boring.
Originally posted by dadudemonThat doesn't really negate what I said.
I addressed your angle, already, in that post your quoted:Also, I addressed your angle in my first post on this topic, as well:
While you feel it is okay to force people to do things because you believe it is morally acceptable to force people to do things, that does not mean it is morally right when placed under scrutiny and a lens. When you start forcing people to do things that you believe are right, we end up in quite big messes.
I'm all for outlawing actions and behaviors that cause physical or financial harm to others. That's okay. That's stopping harmful action, x. But I am not okay with forcing people to do actions that are against their personal beliefs.
The best argument against my position is forcing a parent to take care of their child. What if the parent believes all children should take care of themselves?
I am okay with arguing with myself but it gets boring.
The people are being harmed, maybe not in a physical manner but they are being treated as second class citizens.
As for forcing people to DO things vs Not DO things is bit off center.
Anything you tell them to Not Do is essentially telling them to DO something else.
For example telling a restaurant owner they can not use wild rats in their food is the same as telling them you can ONLY use FDA certified meat. I understand this totally accurate for the above statement but you can also use it as the government saying you NEED to use FDA certified meat only which means you cannot use wild rats as they are not FDA certified.
So that counter-argument doesn't really fly with me. So if it makes you feel better it's not the government telling them they have to serve gays it's them being told they are not allowed to discriminate clientele.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, I was.
Yes, you may have intended that to be the case but you missed the boat and posted something irrelevant. It probably sounded like a good rebuttal before you submitted it but it actually ended up being irrelevant.
Originally posted by Robtard
Bit silly of you to edit my post so it doesn't convey exactly what I said and then reply to that.
Oh? I edited your post, eh?
As fact, I quoted your post and started typing my reply at exactly 10:40 my time: very shortly after you made your post. You edited your post and I did not see your edit until after I posted my reply.
Note that you cannot hide behind the fact that you edited your post because it took you about 2-ish minutes to add more to your post.
Now, just in case you made an honest mistake and thought I edited your post, let's be clear that the only thing you did in your edit was added that second sentence. When I quoted your post, only the first sentence existed. I did not alter that text. Behold, that text matches your text:
Originally posted by Robtard
But if you can't tell the difference between forcibly converting someone to a religion and asking a business to serve you like they serve the rest of the public, then you got some issues, brah.
So there must be something wrong with me because I find it despicable to force people to do things against their will and against their beliefs (whether those beliefs are religions or a-religious: doesn't matter), eh? Perhaps the error is yours in thinking you have any say over what another person can object to doing?
You don't want to be baptized? Okay. Fine. I'm glad. I promise not to legally force you to get into a baptismal font and allow me to dunk you.
See how easy that is? No need to for us to force you to do things against your beliefs.
Except of course it wasn't since it was right on the subject.
I actually last edited at the :50 mark. But if you quoted while I was adding, then my error.
Again, you're missing the point. Telling a business they can't discriminate with a service offered to the public isn't "forcing morals and beliefs" onto said business, it's telling them they can't discriminate.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe a business should be allowed to close their doors to people based on skin color or ethnicity?
Originally posted by Newjak
That doesn't really negate what I said.
It actually does negate what you said and it negates it in the most direct and literal manner, too. You used a faulty comparison because your comparison made the incorrect assumption that a person who wants to murder people should be allowed to do so under my logic. Let's break down your point even further: you assume that these two statements are equivalent:
Person A wants to do harmful action x.
Person B does not want to do un-harmful action y.
x and y are not logically equivalent
Originally posted by Newjak
The people are being harmed, maybe not in a physical manner but they are being treated as second class citizens.
That's a whole new can of worms. But let's be real: this is not the first grade. Billy is going to get offended because of something Jane says or does, sometimes. As long as Billy is not physically harmed and his livelihood remains intact, Jane can say whatever she wants.
Originally posted by Newjak
As for forcing people to DO things vs Not DO things is bit off center.Anything you tell them to Not Do is essentially telling them to DO something else.
No, that's not really the case at all. I'll explain, below.
Originally posted by Newjak
For example telling a restaurant owner they can not use wild rats in their food is the same as telling them you can ONLY use FDA certified meat.
No, that's definitely not the case, at all.
View the set of things that can potentially be used in food as set A.
In set A is everything that can be used. Everything.
If we say that a restaurant can no longer use an element from set A, that element being "rats", then we have only removed element "rats" from set A. What is left in set A?
Everything else except "rats."
You are correct that some of the elements left in set A are FDA approved ingredients, of course. But that's definitely, far and away, not the only elements left in set A.
Originally posted by Newjak
I understand this totally accurate for the above statement
I'm not sure what you meant, here. I think you meant to say "this is totally inaccurate." If you didn't, let me know where I went wrong in my understanding. I just assumed you were making a tongue-in-cheek comparison to get your point across and were not aiming for perfect logic. I do understand your point about the ingredients implying the cooks have to now use stuff that more closely resembles FDA goods. It's just not logically sound.
Originally posted by Newjak
...but you can also use it as the government saying you NEED to use FDA certified meat only which means you cannot use wild rats as they are not FDA certified.
No you cannot use it to state that for the reasons I explained above about elements in set A.
If you make the declaration that a restaurant can only use ingredients on their approved list, you are preventing an action, not forcing an action. Keep in mind that my point is about forcing people to do things against their will.
Let me better explain that.
Action D is using rats as ingredients. You make a law the prevents action D. Action D is legally prevented.
That is not the same thing as what we are talking about. In fact, I cannot make a parallel to the above using that same form because they are not logically equivalent and, therefore, do not share the same logical form.
Originally posted by Newjak
So that counter-argument doesn't really fly with me. So if it makes you feel better it's not the government telling them they have to serve gays it's them being told they are not allowed to discriminate clientele.
Sort of. They are forced to serve everyone but can exclude people that do not fit a specific definition of what kinds of people they are forced to serve. Someone brought up that comparison, before: they can turn away shoe-less gay people because they are shoe-less, not because they are gay. It's creating a specific set of reasons people are forced to do an action <---- a bad thing because this shit gets out of hand and it continues to get more and more out of hand.
Originally posted by Robtard
Again, you're missing the point. Telling a business they can't discriminate with a service offered to the public isn't "forcing morals and beliefs" onto said business, it's telling them they can't discriminate.
That's not an accurate portrayal of the situation, now is it? It's not telling businesses they can't discriminate with a service offered to the public. It's forcing them to do things against their personal beliefs and morals. <--- If you can capture how the others side feels in an argument, then you can understand and move the discussion along. A great way to convince the opposing side to start holding your ideas in an argument is to accurately and sincerely show that you understand their position.
Your position is it is legally okay to force people to do things against their beliefs or morals because some people will refuse service to people based on certain traits. My position is that it is not okay to force people to do things because it is a very bad slippery slope and leads to shitty outcomes like forced Sharia Law.
Originally posted by Robtard
Just out of curiosity, do you believe a business should be allowed to close their doors to people based on skin color or ethnicity?
I thought I made myself very clear on this topic:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't care if I buy goods or services from animal sacrificing devil worshipers or from Buddhist monks. If I like it or have some sort of pragmatic utility from it, I'll buy it. If the food is good but they discriminate against gays? I don't give two shits: I want the food. I'll take my gay friends out to a better place, for sure, if we are deciding what to eat, though.
And in case you still missed it, I believe a business should be allowed to do business with the people that want to do business. The very obvious implication is this means businesses may want to only conduct business with Vietnamese immigrants or just white people. If you don't like that about a business because it offends you, I strongly recommend you not conduct your business with them.
Originally posted by Sacred 117
Incidentally, I was baptized as a Mormon when I was thirteen...Just throwing that out there. haermm
No worries: I just got a new law passed that says you have to let everyone baptize you that asks if they can baptize you. You can't discriminate against anyone who offers, by the way. You have to accept the offers from anyone.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not an accurate portrayal of the situation, now is it? It's not telling businesses they can't discriminate with a service offered to the public. It's forcing them to do things against their personal beliefs and morals.Your position is it is legally okay to force people to do things against their beliefs or morals. My position is that it is not okay to do so because it is a very bad slippery slope.
I thought I made myself very clear on this topic:
And in case you still missed it, I believe a business should be allowed to do business with the people that want to do business. The very obvious implication is this means businesses may want to only conduct business with Vietnamese immigrants or just white people. If you don't like that about a business because it offends you, I strongly recommend you not conduct your business with them.
It's a very accurate portrayal, spot-on actually. Open to the public equals just that. Not "No Blacks, Jews or Mexicans allowed in this here establishment."
My position is that businesses can't (or shouldn't) discriminate.
That's allowing businesses to discriminate. But I will give it to you that you're for all around equal discrimination, as odd as that sounds.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's a very accurate portrayal, spot-on actually. Open to the public equals just that. Not "No Blacks, Jews or Mexicans allowed in this here establishment."
Nope, that's still not an accurate portrayal. You want to pick and chose what it applies to. We explore that, further, down below. You're helping make my point, by the way. I suck at trying to make my point, at times.
Originally posted by Robtard
My position is that businesses can't (or shouldn't) discriminate.
So a business should allow smokers to smoke while in the buildings (and no laws made to prevent this because that would infringe upon the "businesses should not discriminate law" you just made), pee while conducting their transactions, poop on the tables or on the floor, jack-off while walking into the store, serve screaming customers, etc.
Right?
Because they cannot discriminate. They have to serve everyone.
But let's take your position a step further:
Now a plastic surgeon is required, by your law, to perform penectomies on vaginas. Sure, it makes no sense, but we don't want to offend those people, who happen to have just vaginas, that want their nonexistent penis removed.
Originally posted by Robtard
That's allowing businesses to discriminate. But I will give it to you that you're for all around equal discrimination, as odd as that sounds.
It's not that I'm for discrimination. That's not it at all. It's that I'm for allowing people to choose with whom and how they conduct business. To be even more basic about my actual position, I value personal freedom on what choices people make over your right to tell me what to do. This is, of course, dependent upon whether or not those choices cause physical harm or loss of livelihood. If they do, then that personal freedom infringes upon the personal freedom of others.
Another great example of how my approach is actually a good idea is when it comes to gay marriage. Gays should be allowed to marry because it does not physically harm others and it does not negatively impact the livelihood of others. In fact, it may increase the livelihood of others in some ways.
But, and here's the catch, this also means people can make choices that physically harm themselves (and only themselves) or make choices that impact their livelihood in a negative manner. That's the cost of personal choice. So if a business wants to go out of business by discriminating against homosexual couples who want cakes with 2 grooms, so be it. That's the cost of personal freedom.
Really? Anyhow. Fine, I'll play along.
Smoking is harmful to others, that's why there are state-wide tobacco regulations of were you can and can't smoke. Someone's skin color, religion, sexuality and/or religion isn't harmful to others. Smoking isn't outright illegal either, it's just regulated where it can and can't be done. Safety reasons.
Peeing, pooping and masturbation are actions people choose to do at a given times and businesses can turn away customers based on actions. eg Choosing to yell loudly in a theater can get you kicked out. A Black movie-goer didn't choose to be darker skinned though.
A penectomy is the removal of a penis. I have no idea how one would remove a penis from a vagina and how this has anything to do with discrimination.
I wasn't implying that you're happy and like to discriminate. Just that you're okay with businesses doing it as long as it's equal across the board. I disagree with that sentiment.
Originally posted by Robtard
Really? Anyhow. Fine, I'll play along.Smoking is harmful to others, that's why there are state-wide tobacco regulations of were you can and can't smoke.
So we should make smoking illegal?
Got it!
Thanks for clarifying. 😄
I'm all for that, by the way, in principle. As you know, I HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE walking into a face full of second hand smoke. Just being downwind of it pisses me off because I'm a whiny little shit when it comes to inhaling second hand smoke.
Of course, I would never support making cigs illegal because of the whole personal freedom and right to kill yourself beliefs I hold.
Originally posted by Robtard
Peeing, pooping and masturbation are actions people choose to do at a given times and businesses can turn away customers based on actions. eg Choosing to yell loudly in a theater can get you kicked out. A Black movie-goer didn't choose to be darker skinned though.
You get the point, by now, of course. I'm not sure why you are actually indulging those points. I mean, your answers are my answers. That was the implied.
We can't just blanket disallow discrimination, like you suggested. So I take you agree with me, now? 😄
Also, I would like to point how that people are not "born gay." The research has never supported that. There are a myriad of factors that affect how a person's sexuality is behaviorally manifest and some of those factors include genetics. And sexuality is dynamic, even then. Actually, you're one of the last people I would need to tell this too.
Originally posted by Robtard
A penectomy is the removal of a penis. I have no idea how one would remove a penis from a vagina and how this has anything to do with discrimination.
It's rather simple. You want to discriminate against a someone who is probably a woman simply because she was born with female parts.
Originally posted by Robtard
I wasn't implying that you're happy and like to discriminate. Just that you're okay with businesses doing it as long as it's equal across the board. I disagree with that sentiment.
Cool. As long as you accurately understand and represent my point, I don't care if you agree with it or not because we will clearly never agree. But I do feel very comfortable with how you view my perspective and that is as much as any reasonable person should expect out of a very polarizing discussion like this one.
To boil it down even simpler, I want personal freedom which includes being a dick without harming others and you want to limit personal freedoms so that certain dickish ideas are excluded.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you going to take what I say out of context and/or add your own meaning, it's impossible to have a discussion.
So I can be clear, you do not think it is dickish to discriminate against homosexuals when conducting business?* I thought that was your perspective.
*And, by extension, should be excluded in the set of things that are allowed when conducting business.
It's obvious that I do think it's "dickish" to discriminate against homosexuals, along with discrimination against people for their ethnicity, sex, gender, skin color, physical/mental disability, religion. There's probably a few more I can't think of atm.
Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule, eg I wouldn't hold it against a park if they didn't allow someone in a wheelchair on a rollercoaster where it would be dangerous for them (and others) to ride due to their physical limitations. But said wheelchair person should be let inside the park to enjoy other activities.
On the other side of the spectrum to the '111 Bakery' closing (which may or may not have been due to this), it seems being bigoted can come with rewards:
'God Has Blessed Us For Standing Up': Indiana Pizza Shop Gets $500,000 In Donations
The owners of an Indiana pizza parlor who say they can't cater same-sex weddings are thanking God for the half-million dollars in donations they've received.
After a local Indiana news station aired an interview with Crystal O'Connor and her father Kevin, the Memories Pizza owners closed their doors to avoid the attacks they say they were receiving. The family said they welcome gay people into their restaurant, but couldn't cater a same-sex wedding, and supported Gov. Mike Pence's anti-gay "religious freedom" law.
Negative comments on social media, ugly images and remarks on the restaurant's Yelp and Facebook pages, one person on Twitter suggesting arson, and claims of death threats all quickly plagued the small eatery.
On Wednesday night Crystal went on a Glenn Beck TV show during which right wing activist Dana Loesch revealed her team had set up a GoFundMe page to accept donations. Less than 48 hours later, that fund has grown to over a half-million dollars.
O'Connor appeared on Fox News Business Thursday evening, telling host Neil Cavuto she and her father feel blessed for the donations, which at that point were just over $200,000.
"God has blessed us for standing up for what we believe, and not denying Him," she told him.
Crystal says she and her father "don't hate gays," they merely feel they cannot participate in or condone a same-sex wedding, because of their religious beliefs.
And she asked the LGBT community to respect her beliefs as she respects theirs.
"All we can do is pray for them, and truly, we're not really angry at them. We're sad for them. Very sad."
When asked, she told Cavuto she doesn't really have gay friends, except "down the friend line" she knows of gay people.
She says she's asking for mutual acceptance from the LGBT community.
"We have to accept them, and we just ask they accept us."Link
edit: Other sites say funds have well surpassed $500k
Originally posted by dadudemon
No worries: I just got a new law passed that says you have to let everyone baptize you that asks if they can baptize you. You can't discriminate against anyone who offers, by the way. You have to accept the offers from anyone.
What if I'm gay? uhuh
They still want to baptize me? 131
Edit: Expected answer:
Spoiler:
I'm not actually gay. Lol. 😛
Originally posted by Sacred 117
What if I'm gay? uhuhThey still want to baptize me? 131
Edit: Expected answer:
Spoiler:
I'm not actually gay. Lol. 😛
Yes. Mormons are for LGBT rights. Just not having hot, stinky, man on man buttsex (they are okay with people being different just not actually being sinful), for example. They think of it just the same as a person born with a very strong genetic predisposition towards anger and violence: everyone is born with innate sin potential.
Mormons have a weird/different approach to homosexuality.