Colorado's Masterpiece Cakeshop Must Serve Gay Couples Despite Owner's Religious Beliefs, Judge Ru

macman
reply to post by TheRegal

 

Deflect and attack. The Progressive strategy.


Topic at hand is......................The Owner of a business is forced to do something against his will. And it is rationalized because it is deemed as "fair".

My military service has nothing to do with this issue.

If you were a Libertarian, your ideals would not be what they are.

I am a libertarian of sorts, don't tell me what I am.

lib·er·ty
ˈlibərtē/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

The difference between you and I is that I recognize that restrictions can be imposed by sources other than the government. We as the people, have the right to legislate to stop such restrictions from occurring, an should rightfully do so when such restrictions are based on grounds that the one being restricted does not have the ability to change.

Seems like common sense to me. This is how you apply the 14th Amendment across the board.

Sorry that I'm not on the bandwagon of labeling everything that I don't agree with as "progressive" and acting like that makes it a wash. I'm not a tactless assclown. It's called freedom; if you can't do things base on intrinsic attributes of your being simply because people want to persecute you even though you aren't harming anyone, that is not freedom, and there will be regulations surrounding it. This is just how it works.

DP

TheRegal

I am a libertarian of sorts, don't tell me what I am.

Of sorts huh?
Yeah, okay then.

TheRegal

lib·er·ty
ˈlibərtē/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

You had to go to a dictionary for your retort?

TheRegal
The difference between you and I is that I recognize that restrictions can be imposed by sources other than the government.

So, that is nice an all, except it flies in the face of what this thread is about.
The outside forces, non Govt forces which you claim to recognize are the personal beliefs of the business owner.
You like to use this when convenient for your stance, and throw it out when not.

TheRegal
We as the people, have the right to legislate to stop such restrictions from occurring, an should rightfully do so when such restrictions are based on grounds that the one being restricted does not have the ability to change.

That was a lot of "restrictions" used.
So, mob rule, removing the rights of the individual to follow that of the group.
Yea, that is a perfect example of the Progressive/Collective mindset. But, do please go on about how Libertarian you and your ideals are.

TheRegal
Seems like common sense to me. This is how you apply the 14th Amendment across the board.

That's nice.

TheRegal
Sorry that I'm not on the bandwagon of labeling everything that I don't agree with as "progressive" and acting like that makes it a wash.

An apology for not calling something what it is? Apology excepted I guess.

TheRegal
I'm not a tactless assclown.

TheRegal
It's called freedom; if you can't do things base on intrinsic attributes of your being simply because people want to persecute you even though you aren't harming anyone, that is not freedom, and there will be regulations surrounding it. This is just how it works.

So, there is Freedom, only if the mob deems it as worthy and falling within line to their view of it.

Your statements are very much encased within double standards. If you can't see that, you never will.

beezzer
reply to post by Rosha

 

So do you think "No shirt, no shoes, no service" discriminates as well?

You are smart enough to know that is about sanitary and liabality. No one is prevented from putting shoes and a shirt. Those are not things you are born to abhor, they are choices you make. Want me to come over barefoot, shirtless, and lean all over your food??? If I step on broken glass, I get to sue you now, right? You know better.

NowanKenubi
Yes, it is always a very, very good idea to insult, yell at and most important, SUE someone to FORCE him/her to prepare your meals.

hmmm... How about a sweat-spit-snot cake now?...

Are you suggesting a good Christian business person would resort to spitting/blowing their nose in people's food if state law violates their religious beliefs? Why not use proper channels to change the law? What you describe is pure ignorance and has nothing to do with a belief system, it shouldn't be tolerated.

You obviously have a much lower opinion of Christians than I do. The majority of Christians I've met in Colorado are nothing like the bakers. I've transported hiv/aids patients. A charitable organization staffed by many Christian volunteers utilized our services. I saw real caring/compassion for people in need. This organization sought out our services and complied with state law involved. They didn't judge or expect payment. In fact they paid a very hefty bill for transport to University hospital in Denver. Not only did they secure our services, they had a food/clothing bank, used furniture/appliances, they offered help with moving/housing etc. They were wonderful.

Frankly the type of Christian you describe has no place in biz or any state for that matter. Anyone that spits in someone's food needs psychiatric care. Banning gays won't fix their underlying issues.

I imagine our Christian community is somewhat embarrassed by the publicity surrounding these bakers. That might explain the lack of news coverage. Either way pot's the #1 story here, not bigoted bakers or outraged Christians. They simply don't have a strong enough voice to keep out gambling, alcohol or pot and they'll have to put up with gays too or leave.

The people of Colorado have decided what's best for our state, you are free to hate us/disagree but you are not free to violate our laws.