Thank you for clarifying - it seemed like we were in agreement, and then it seemed like we weren't.
If people wouldn't be aholes - if they would police their own - government wouldn't have to get involved.
This Perfectly Sums Up What “Rights” Mean to Liberals
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Thank you for clarifying - it seemed like we were in agreement, and then it seemed like we weren't.
If people wouldn't be aholes - if they would police their own - government wouldn't have to get involved.
BOP
Well-Known Member
Even back in the '50s, and earlier, the kind of savage racism was not widespread. Back then, blacks simply had no money, and therefore, no one wanted to serve them. This may come as a surprise to you, young Andy, but a lot of white people were in the same boat. You know who was the most ardently racist in this country? People whose jobs were open to competition from blacks who would work at a lower wage. Hmmm...where have we heard that before?
Amused_despair
New Member
Ardent racism was not widespread? Treated as a second class citizen, not able to eat at the same lunch counter, drink from the same water fountain, but not ardent? OK. How about the inventor of the process of getting plasma from human blood, which saved countless lives, dying because he was black and had to be taken to a hospital that served his kind? Not ardent? OK. Lets go back to earlier in the 20th century than the 1950's, as you suggested. Rosewood. A whole town wiped out, gone. But that is in the past, just like lynching, right? Except the last recorded lynching in America happened in the 1980's. Not the 1880's, the 1980's. I am scared to find out what you actually consider an example of ardent racism, was the Holocaust an example of ardent racism? The subjugation of the Irish by the British empire? The subjugation of Central and South America by the Spanish and Portuguese? What are the limits that qualify for "ardent"?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
From the OP's link;
When a piece starts off completely wrong, it's never a good sign especially when it is a piece holding that the OTHER guys have it wrong.
The D of I states that we 'hold' these truths to be self evident. That means that is what we BELIEVE and it's not subject to debate or science or modification. These are the basic truths of life that we ascribe to. By definition, by declaring our independence, we are holding as self evident that not everyone believes that or there'd be no need to declare independence. Furthermore, to make it absolutely clear that we're talking about beliefs and not things that just exist, we state that governments are instituted to secure these blessings and that this power is to be from the consent, thus making it just, of the governed; agree upon rules. And that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, securing the blessings, the self evident truths we state we believe in, then it is the right of the people to fix it or end it.
If no one could take them away, there'd be no need for a declaration, a Constitution nor a government.
Young conservatives getting off on the wrong foot.
When a piece starts off completely wrong, it's never a good sign especially when it is a piece holding that the OTHER guys have it wrong.
The D of I states that we 'hold' these truths to be self evident. That means that is what we BELIEVE and it's not subject to debate or science or modification. These are the basic truths of life that we ascribe to. By definition, by declaring our independence, we are holding as self evident that not everyone believes that or there'd be no need to declare independence. Furthermore, to make it absolutely clear that we're talking about beliefs and not things that just exist, we state that governments are instituted to secure these blessings and that this power is to be from the consent, thus making it just, of the governed; agree upon rules. And that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, securing the blessings, the self evident truths we state we believe in, then it is the right of the people to fix it or end it.
If no one could take them away, there'd be no need for a declaration, a Constitution nor a government.
Young conservatives getting off on the wrong foot.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
What makes it worse is how it defames the faith. The Christ I was taught fed people, healed them, sat with lepers. We were taught things like 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. The Christ I was taught would bake cakes for gay people or black or white or whatever. The Jesus who suffered for our sins, was crucified and died on the gross and was risen again, man, is that what it was all for, some that folks could deny one another over the most trivial of matters?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
How on earth can you say that?
In the same context, it does one no harm to make them sit in the back of the bus, to make them use the hose instead of the water fountain, to go to the next diner or hotel. Those are mere inconveniences, yes? Can you imagine walking into a bakery with your daughter, all excited about her wedding, to pick out a cake, her cake, for her special day and then be told "Sorry, pal. We don't bake cakes for straight weddings."
I object to things like affirmative action just as I'd object to being told 'we don't bake straight cakes' or being told to use a different fountain or bathroom hotel. Good lord, by the same token, where is the harm in someone who BAKES CAKES for a living BAKING a cake??? If you claim a religious RIGHT to not bake a cake based on what SOMEONE else is symbolically using it for, SYMBOLICALLY, what it represents to THEM, you would certainly agree that a doctor should not have to work on a person who, in their mind, represents sin, yes? Or firemen refusing to fight fires at 'gay' houses?
The growth of Islam, submission, is a threat to us ALL, meaning anyone who believes in the declaration of independence and the US Constitution, individual liberty, freedom, justice AND responsibility, not to mention religious freedom. This sort of social division does nothing but weaken us to their benefit. Ted Cruz said these people were 'brave' for refusing to bake a cake. I say they'd have been brave had they, cheerfully, conducted their chosen business. That would have been in keeping with the faith I was taught.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
And, again, the faith, Christianity told us to love one another, to turn the other cheek. That has been refined to 'love the sinner, not the sin' and that's fine, too but there is NO way I can see Christ refusing to bake a cake for gay people or that he intended as such. I CAN see him attending the gay wedding.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I think there is where conservatives sometimes miss the mark. We like our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and use them as the basis for limited government, properly so. However, we tend to forget the part about 'governments are instituted to secure these blessings'. We'd have little trouble agreeing where our government goes too far. Yet, wouldn't we agree that there are, thus, times when it doesn't go far enough? I would argue that there is no difference in saying 'we don't serve gays' and 'no blacks/Irish" allowed. And again, I would argue that business has a responsibility to the community that goes above the rights of the individual. The business owner doesn't have to let gays or blacks or whites in his home and bake them a cake. As a business, I see it otherwise and I certainly don't see it as a violation of their first amendment rights to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Is that an individual right or no? I would argue there is, or should be, a clear difference between the Constitutional rights of the individual and a business.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
A bridge too far. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not even in the same universe as preying on children.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Not true. When I was a little kid there was a sign on Rt 1, major road, had a sign in, ironically, Savage that said "###### don't let the sun set on you'. It was there until the late 60's/early 70's I am told. No, you may say 'it was just a sign' but I don't think you'd think the same thing if it said 'Honky don't let the sun set on you'.
Bah, they'd just laugh and go to another bakery. Which is what these gay activists should do, except that they're trying to rouse the rabble and make a political/social statement. How many Christian bakers have they tried to "out" who said, "Sure, we'll make your cake, no problem"? I'm sure there have been many, but we're not going to hear about those.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Agreed. In the first place I would be afraid to eat a cake I forced someone to bake. I wouldn't want pictures I forced someone to take.
This whole set up is BS. Someone doesn't want to bake your cake go somewhere else.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I feel I have to make it clear that I DO NOT agree with discrimination. I think it shows poor character and, especially in the vein of exercising one’s Christianity, it reflects poorly on their understanding of their faith.
We have to distinguish between institutionalized discrimination and individual discrimination. America of pre-Civil Rights Act was an institutionalized discrimination where it was legal to not only force blacks into a place of subservience, but it was expected. It was legal for a white person to inflict violence on blacks if they crossed that line.
We DO NOT have that today. There are no separate water fountains for gays, no back of the bus, no less pay for gays… There is no institutionalized discrimination.
That’s how I can say that. But, as with all of these conversations… I am interested in how the constitution answers to these things. First do we have freedom of choice? Second, are Christian business owners allowed to assert 1st amendment protections when refusing to serve people? Are gays free to go to a different baker? Or are we going to take this up with government and have them force us to behave?
CleanTheSlateInSMC
Infidel
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I was just on another forum on the subject.
All these people want to do is just say, no, I am stepping back. I could make money off of this and throw my beliefs away, but my conscience says to step back.
If you want anything else, I'm fine with that - don't ask me to participate in something I believe is wrong. Go ahead and do it, I don't mind. You're free to do so and I
won't do a thing. Just don't ask me to be a part of it.
They are not Westboro; they're not picketing outside the wedding. They're not sending hatemail or hurting anyone. They just don't want to be a part of it, and they're willing to lose business over it. It is a PASSIVE thing. They are not actively persecuting anyone, and if you compel them, they may choose to go to jail over it.
And now someone says they must be COMPELLED to be a part of it. Even if you don't believe what they believe, where does freedom of religion actually START?
SG_Player1974
New Member
I would have thought he could have done this in 1 of his 9 consecutive posts :shrug:
PsyOps
Pixelated
So you want laws written that force businesses, that are run by Christians, to serve people they may stand against the practice of their religion? This is one place people (even if they are running a business) are not allowed to fully exercise their 1st amendment rights?