It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should gay people fight for the right for anti-gay businesses to take their money or just boycott?

page: 17
8
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004

Why shouldn't it be called marriage? .
Why does it effect you?.




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



When poster has to resort to KKK or communism or Nazi's - - - you know they have nothing left.


LOL see? Godwin's law wins again.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


So you just pick and choose what laws to follow then.


Yes. Did you see what I wrote?


Laws that make non-criminal behaviors punishable, don't have to be followed.


I suppose Rosa Parks should have just stfu'd and moved to the back of the bus, I mean it was the law.


Fine, I choose not to follow any RFRA laws then


Exactly! Now you're starting to catch on! Only really really mean people write laws to force their will on others!


I never said I did.


Yes, you did. If you think you have a right to someone's business because they "advertise to the public," then you are implying that you have a rightful authority over their labor and property.


But that someone is offering their labor for sale and their property for sale.


Which doesn't mean they have to sell to you.



That was of their own free will to make the offer.


Which means you have a right to their labor and property?


I'm acting on my free will to take them up on their offer. I didn't force anyone to offer up anything. They made that choice.


And they can choose to deny your counter-offer for any reason.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Oh god.

Wrong on all counts. Please stop before you make a fool out of yourself. Just please for your sake read up on fascism. Please.


You could just make counter arguments. Most reasonable people do.

But you haven't actually put forth a single argument against anything I've said. You just keep using red herrings and deflecting the debate.
edit on 5-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon



You could just make counter arguments. Most reasonable people do.


I did. I told you to read up on fascism. Obviously you don't know what fascism means.

I'll make it really really really really simple for you. No I do not support dictators and totalitarian governments.

You seem to think that since I want laws it means that I'm a fascist. If I want a law against murder, does that mean I am a fascist?
edit on 4/5/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

A cake baking Business isn't Religious in nature so it has no grounds to exercise a religion. When bakers are clergy and bakeries are churches let me know.



Likewise, when cake baking businesses are entirely automated and no longer require people to run, let me know. A business cannot of course exercise a religion - but the people who measure the flour and keep the cake from bursting into flame can and do.

A business can be forced to agree to bake your cake, but if the people operating it refuse to do so, then all your gonna get is a "sorry your wedding got ruined, but them's the breaks. Better luck next time".

So then one must evaluate which is more important to them - having a decent wedding, or trying to make a bull headed point against strangers. If making the point is more important to you than your own wedding, then sue. If the wedding is more important, find a willing baker. It's not rocket surgery.





Personally I don't have a problem with it. But they have laws against it so it's not up to how I feel personally.



Don't worry - I believe those laws will soon be vacated. They probably cannot stand in this current environment, where christians types are being targeted. Or maybe they WILL stand - they are, after all, a matter of religious freedom, and religious freedom is what is under assault currently.




Ya, well US Law says businesses must treat everyone the same but somehow that's when things become religious.



No, if things hadn't gotten religious before that, the question would never have come up. I'm not real sure about any laws that say businesses have to treat every one the same. I've never run across a law like that. There may be some among the handful of "civil rights" laws that were passed. There are laws at every turn that say government has to treat all the same, but none that I'm aware of concerning businesses. That doesn't mean that there aren't any - there's lots of stuff I'm unaware of, but nevertheless exists.

IF such laws do exist, then there is a real quandary to handle, because they would have to be in direct contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Government would HAVE to "prohibit the free exercise of religion" in order to apply such a law to a religious person, and that is the exact wording of what government is NOT allowed to do in the First Amendment.





Public stoning for Christians

Can you give me an example of Christians conducting a stoning, please?



The Bible.


There are no Christian stonings in the bible. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. nary a single example.




Show me where Christians aren't supposed to bake cakes for Gay People.



You should probably ask a Christian to do that, since I have no idea where it would be, or if it's even there. I'm not a Christian. THEY are the ones saying it's there - I'm only saying that their religion should be respected whatever they think it is. It's not for you or I to define what THEIR religion says - it's just for us to allow them as much freedom as everyone else, including the gay community.

In all honesty, I don't recall cakes being mentioned anywhere at all in the bible, even the non-christian parts of it. I think there are some bits about unleavened bread, but that would make a really poor cake, and it's not mentioned in conjunction with homosexuality at all.

In other words, it's not up to you or I to make a case for THEIR religion, unless we state as fact that it says this or that - we should be prepared to back that up. I'm not making a case for their religion, whether it's right, or wrong, or what it says or doesn't say. I'm making the case for their liberty to exercise it as they see fit, which is another thing altogether.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



I did. I told you to read up on fascism. Obviously you don't know what fascism means.


This is what I am talking about. You are deflecting everything because I called you a fascist. I have arguments I put forth a few pages ago that you are failing to address.


I'll make it really really really really simple for you. No I do not support dictators and totalitarian governments.


I'll make it really really really simple for you: you are an authoritarian. If you support using the law to make non-criminal behaviors punishable, then you are a dictator no better than religious zealots that do the same.


You seem to think that since I want laws it means that I'm a fascist. If I want a law against murder, does that mean I am a fascist?


Is a law against murder making a non-criminal behavior punishable by government?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

When your business serves everyone else but me simply because I am who I am then it is your business that has infringed upon my right to be treated equally when engaged in business.



There is no such right. Never has been, never will be, not anywhere on Earth. This is not "one of those things I may not be aware of", this is something I am acutely aware of, and state as fact that it does not exist, this "right to be treated equally when engaged in business". You have a reasonable expectation to be treated equally under the law, but that expectation extends only to dealings with... the law. The thing there specified that you are dealing under. it deals, specifically, with interactions between yourself and the government (i.e. those who make and enforce "the law"). It does not extend to the interpersonal arena.




It is your business that has infringed upon my freedom of choice and excludes me from the same choices that everyone else has.



The only choices you, I, or anyone else have are what is available to us. We cannot choose what is not available, and when that availability is removed, so is it's status as "a choice". We, you and I and ALL of us, have certain avenues that are not available to us, but ARE available to others. NONE of us has exactly the same choices available as everyone else.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon


This is what I am talking about. You are deflecting everything because I called you a fascist. I have arguments I put forth a few pages ago that you are failing to address.


Let this be a lesson to you on choosing name calling as a debate tactic then. It does nothing but take away from the debate, make you look like an ass, and get people riled up.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon



You are deflecting everything because I called you a fascist.

No you are deflecting by calling me a fascist.



you are an authoritarian. If you support using the law to make non-criminal behaviors punishable


Where the f did I say that? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. I don't agree with laws criminalizing marijuana use for example.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Prove to me they are working without a business license.


The state's use of force for licensing is not evidence that humans do not have the right to engage in commerce.

That just means that there are more people on your side with guns to enforce your point-of-view, and the force of will is a poor argument.

If we followed your logic it could be deduced that humans don't have the right to life because governments kill people.


Do their customers arrive from an "air drop" so they don't use public access?


What do you mean by "public access"?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
Fine, I choose not to follow any RFRA laws then

Exactly! Now you're starting to catch on! Only really really mean people write laws to force their will on others!


Well if this is what you're suggesting then there is no discussion or argument to be had. It's just a free for all to do as we please.

That applies equally by default so I guess I can't argue against that. I'm not sure how far you'll get by following it but go ahead and do it if that's what you want.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Annee


Unless maybe you're selling oranges off your private land or in the parking lot of your church.


And this is exactly how all business should be handled.


Well fine, have a business on your private property.

But, most businesses are in a commercial area. In a rented "brick and mortar". Using public access.

Private does not apply.


Then why are they allowed to put signs in their windows saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service" or "no weapons allowed"? Why do they pay taxes - we don't pay taxes on public property, like national parks. Paying taxes implies ownership or control - that's why taxes are paid only by private entities, and no taxes are ever paid by public entities - i.e. "government". I don't know of any governments that pay taxes - do you?

ALL businesses that are not government run are on private property. Access is immaterial - using that logic, you should be able to put up a house anywhere you can literally get to to put one up, and no one should be able to stop you from building it. That's not something I recommend you try, just to test it out.



edit on 2015/4/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu



Then why are they allowed to put signs in their windows saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service"


Because of health issue? Maybe they are concerned that they will cut their feet with glasses and whatnot? Maybe they are concerned about other customers' health?
edit on 4/5/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu

What is the problem with that? You do know it's coming, once the floodgates have opened, right? I have no problem with it at all - their lives are not mine to run. After all, I'm all for gay marriage on legal grounds, why would I not be for multiple marriages on religious grounds?



Under religious freedom, Mormon's should never have had polygamy taken away from them in the first place.

Just sayin'


Oh, I agree, wholeheartedly. Same for Muslims and any other religion that practices polyamory. The fact remains that it WAS taken away from them, by a bunch of "do gooders" willing to ignore the already established law in their effort to make other folk conform to their way of thinking by passing yet another law against the law that already was.

Honestly, I really DO see a parallel here!

Another way of looking at it is this: the government, not being a religion but rather being secular, can say how many licenses it's willing to grant per person. In other words, the government is not bound to recognize religious practice in it's secular licensing. It can (and probably should) have entirely different rules for secular marriage than the rules in religions, because every religion is different, and so the government can't hope to cover them all with one set of rules.

The problems arise when the government makes a law against a religious practice, rather than for it's own secular version. There is no reason that a polyamorous marriage could not select one to "secularly solemnize" for state licensing, and have the rest as religious marriages... except that silly law, which can and sometimes does prosecute for polygamy (or at times polyandry) on grounds of "bigamy". as soon as they do that, they are infringing on religious rights.

But they do it anyhow. I strongly suspect the government really doesn't care a fig about what the law says when applied to itself.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



No you are deflecting by calling me a fascist.


Fair enough, ad hominems are a form of deflection, but I can't challenge you to a trial-by-combat, so they're the best I have.




you are an authoritarian. If you support using the law to make non-criminal behaviors punishable


Where the f did I say that? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. I don't agree with laws criminalizing marijuana use for example.


You never explicitly said it, it is implied regarding your stance on anti-discrimination laws.

Discrimination isn't a crime, and discrimination laws make a non-criminal behavior punishable, so the laws are authoritarian by nature.

Just like Jim Crowe laws made non-criminal behaviors punishable.
Just like drug laws make non-criminal behavior punishable.
Just like conceal-carry laws make non-criminal behavior punishable.
Just like licensing laws für businesses make non-criminal behaviors punishable.

It's all the effing same bs over and over and over again.


People should be encouraged to break laws like that, and I actively encourage it.
edit on 5-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It isn't even that. Dress codes are "all Inclusive". They apply across the board and don't single out a segment of society.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I do understand where you are coming from. I truly do.



Discrimination isn't a crime, and discrimination laws make a non-criminal behavior punishable, so the laws are authoritarian by nature.


I don't really think we are trying to punish business owners. We do not want to drag them to jail. Basically the only thing anyone who got discriminated can do is to sue them.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu

Exactly.

Secular government.

Discrimination occurs in private all the time.


This isn't about private.



Really? It's about whether government will bake a cake for a gay wedding then?


No, its not.

Its treating every customer the same.

Wedding - - - not gay Wedding.



Annee dear, I love ya to death, but I think you're trying to confuse me now. Shame on you! You recall I'm old and easily confused, right?

My response was to your statement that it "wasn't about private". In this context, there are only two choices - "public" which is government, and "private" which is not government. Some businesses are public, some are private. the public ones - like some utilities - are uniformly owned and operated by government. Private business is not - it's owned and operated by private people.

When you make a business "public", the government then owns and runs it... So, unless we are talking about a government run bakery like I thought we were, then I guess it really IS "about private"!

ETA: No two customers are EVER treated the same. Heck, I once had a business that even had a three tiered price structure. the prices changed depending on the customer. Private Joe got one price, Contractor Ed got another (cheaper) price, and there was a level in between for cash discounts. Other folks got thrown out altogether, and got no transactions at all. Don't care how much money they had. I would sell the same piece of equipment at 3 different prices, depending on who you were and what you were going to do with it, and the government never said boo about it.



edit on 2015/4/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I don't care if they want to live the way they do. I will sell them my wares. I feel the problems is they want me to participate in that which violates my conscious. I feel homosexuality is inherently wrong that is my conviction but I wont judge them for it they can live a s they want.

what bugs me is they want to force me to participate in their lifestyle.

Why would they do that to me?

Why do they want to force me to violate my conscious?

I am not forcing them to my way of life or thinking so why are they doing it to me?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join