Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That's idiotic coming from you, Surt, because you're an atheist.Right and wrong shouldn't be determined by delusional beliefs.
I'm an atheist who grew up going to Catholic schools, I've seen what faith means to some people.
As for right and wrong, I don't know why it's anymore right to force someone to do something they don't wanna do than it is to refuse to do something that genuinely makes you uncomfortable.
Perhaps Surtur holds the more libertarian/classical liberal view that the law shouldn't be used to enforce right and wrong, but should be used to protect the citizenry from theft and violence and to secure their liberty.
Freedom of speech for example is something we uphold even when someone says something blatantly immoral.
Perhaps Surtur holds a similar view of a person's right to control their own labor, property, and business and think those things belong to them, and that it's theirs to determine how it's used regardless if he agrees or disagrees with their reasoning.
Me personally I would've baked the person the cake were I in the baker's position, but I apply a similar adage to the old liberal adage about free speech "I may disagree with what you say but I'll die for your right to say it."
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Perhaps Surtur holds the more libertarian/classical liberal view that the law shouldn't be used to enforce right and wrong, but should be used to protect the citizenry from theft and violence and to secure their liberty.Freedom of speech for example is something we uphold even when someone says something blatantly immoral.
Perhaps Surtur holds a similar view of a person's right to control their own labor, property, and business and think those things belong to them, and that it's theirs to determine how it's used regardless if he agrees or disagrees with their reasoning.
Me personally I would've baked the person the cake were I in the baker's position, but I apply a similar adage to the old liberal adage about free speech "I may disagree with what you say but I'll die for your right to say it."
I prefer a world in which the government serves to protect our life, liberty, and property, to a world in which people use the government as a vehicle for enforcing their moral agenda, be it the Christian Church, the LGBT movement, feminists, etc.
It would be wiser to push the live and let live standard because that is the standard by which people who disagree can coexist peacefully, and it was for a while the standard of the LGBT movement.
It is in fact the standard behind the Founding Father's separation of church and state, because there's mutual protection in that. I don't get to push my church on you and in turn you don't get to wield the law as a sword against my church.
It's a mutually protective and peaceful idea.
But some people have this weird view that they can make the argument that "other people have no damn business pushing their morals on me through the government, but I can push my morals on them through the government because my morals are the right morals, I can act in a way I would not accept from those other people because my morals are the right ones." Except I can guarantee you they think their morals are the right ones too, and they will not cuck to you and acquiesce to not pushing their morals on you through the government if you have no intention of not trying to use the state as a moral weapon against them.
Individual sovereignty under the law is what people expect for themselves, and what people use to argue against morals they don't agree with being pushed on them by law... but too many people aren't willing to extend that standard to the people they disagree with, and are more than happy for the state to be used as a moral weapon so long as it's enforcing their morals.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Call me crazy, but I don't think that people with delusional and discriminatory beliefs should be encouraged in those beliefs. They certainly shouldn't be encouraged to act upon those beliefs.
An interesting statement given that one of the people going after the guy is a tranny. Do you apply your logic to them?
Originally posted by Surturi would argue both. Tho i would put the baker as the lesser of the 2 dicks, but still a dick
One could argue he's being a dick for refusing, but you could also argue they are being dicks for trying to force this man to do something that he clearly believes goes against his spiritual beliefs.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Call me crazy, but I don't think that people with delusional and discriminatory beliefs should be encouraged in those beliefs. They certainly shouldn't be encouraged to act upon those beliefs.
I definitely agree with you.
But I don't want this opinion of ours to be codified into law and for there to be the possibility of fines, jail time, or imprisonment.
Personal conduct vs. legal conduct.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I definitely agree with you.But I don't want this opinion of ours to be codified into law and for there to be the possibility of fines, jail time, or imprisonment.
Personal conduct vs. legal conduct.
So you in fact do not think delusional people should have their delusions encouraged?
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Call me crazy, but I don't think that people with delusional and discriminatory beliefs should be encouraged in those beliefs. They certainly shouldn't be encouraged to act upon those beliefs.
You are crazy. There.
You worship Satan and Hellboy. Get real, goth boy.
I’m for freedom of speech and whatever that entails. I’m for every American.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Call me crazy, but I don't think that people with delusional and discriminatory beliefs should be encouraged in those beliefs. They certainly shouldn't be encouraged to act upon those beliefs.
I'm still curious if you apply this only to religious people or all people.