SC Decision Will Affect Us All

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by EmmaLee »

captainfearnot wrote: December 5th, 2017, 12:48 pm
EmmaLee wrote: December 5th, 2017, 12:20 pm Jack Phillips has made it abundantly clear that he would design such a cake for a straight wedding but not a gay one.
Show me, with a link to Phillips own words, where he has ever said that.
I posted his editorial before I saw this, but just to be clear:
"Jack Phillips" wrote:What I design is not just a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a specific couple and a specific event — a message telling all who see it that this event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration.

In this case, I couldn’t. What a cake celebrating this event would communicate was a message that contradicts my deepest religious convictions, and as an artist, that’s just not something I’m able to do, so I politely declined.
He specifies that the message he objects to communicating is "this event is a wedding" and "an occasion for celebration"—a message which is conveyed by any wedding cake. And he says that he cannot convey that message when the wedding in question is a gay one.

Your turn. Please cite where Jack Phillips has ever designed a wedding cake for a gay wedding, upon deeming that the requested design was not a celebration of gay marriage.

Or, please cite the details of the design that Mullins and Craig requested that caused Phillips to decline. If they "obviously" requested specific details celebrating gay marriage in the design then why aren't we talking about them? Why don't we know what they are?
I'm glad you found and posted that Phillips article - thank you again. But it doesn't change anything to do with this case in my opinion. Even if Phillips wouldn't bake a generic wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, good for him! I applaud him for having the gonads to actually LIVE his religion and hold to his faith, unlike many LDS people, it seems. He has EVERY right to decline baking a cake for anyone - I don't care who they are or what their event is. THAT is the central point here, and you are trying to overshadow that by harping on minutia - distraction is a favorite of leftists.

Summary - Phillips, et al, should not be FORCED (whose favorite tool is that? oh yeah, SATAN) by the anti-God, anti-Christ government, to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. Plain, simple, end of story. If the public don't like that, then the public will put them out of business - that's how it should be. That is called freedom - that is allowing PEOPLE to use their AGENCY, unlike leftists and their socialist, fascist government cronies who want to FORCE everyone to do THEIR will. The nanny state needs to go away. People need to be left to make their own choices and let the chips fall. Not unlike Joseph Smith - "I teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves." THAT is God-like. All this crap about gov't ruling and reigning over every single aspect of all of our lives, and trying to remove our AGENCY, is SATANIC.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by captainfearnot »

EmmaLee wrote: December 5th, 2017, 12:59 pm I'm glad you found and posted that Phillips article - thank you again.
If you don't mind I'm going to interpret your gratitude as an implicit apology for calling me a liar, accusing me of not reading the legal petition I linked to, etc. No hard feelings.
Even if Phillips wouldn't bake a generic wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, good for him! I applaud him for having the gonads to actually LIVE his religion and hold to his faith, unlike many LDS people, it seems.
I agree, Mr. Phillips is the good guy here. He is standing up for what he believes in, against some gay bullies and their liberal backers. If this were a reality show I'd be in his corner. But that doesn't mean I think he should prevail in court. Legal questions of rights and freedoms are not a popularity contest.
He has EVERY right to decline baking a cake for anyone - I don't care who they are or what their event is. THAT is the central point here, and you are trying to overshadow that by harping on minutia - distraction is a favorite of leftists.
Umm, no. He does not have that right. In my opinion, that's why he starts his editorial with an adamant claim that he'll sell a cake to anyone. He'd be in some legal hot water if that were not the case.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Silver »

EmmaLee wrote: December 5th, 2017, 11:36 am And I'm posting these articles because they explain the crux of the problem we're dealing with here - which is not cakes, in case some of you hadn't realized that. If you don't want to read them, don't. But for those here on this 'Freedom Forum' who actually care about freedom, you will find them beneficial and enlightening, I believe.
I commend you for your ability to live by your signature line. I aspire to achieve that sort of confident tranquility.

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by EmmaLee »

captainfearnot wrote: December 5th, 2017, 1:15 pm
EmmaLee wrote: December 5th, 2017, 12:59 pm I'm glad you found and posted that Phillips article - thank you again.
If you don't mind I'm going to interpret your gratitude as an implicit apology for calling me a liar, accusing me of not reading the legal petition I linked to, etc. No hard feelings.
I wasn't apologizing at all - I said/did nothing that would require an apology. My gratitude was just that - nothing more - as I hadn't read that article yet, I was glad to see it. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and view it that way.
Even if Phillips wouldn't bake a generic wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, good for him! I applaud him for having the gonads to actually LIVE his religion and hold to his faith, unlike many LDS people, it seems.
I agree, Mr. Phillips is the good guy here. He is standing up for what he believes in, against some gay bullies and their liberal backers. If this were a reality show I'd be in his corner. But that doesn't mean I think he should prevail in court. Legal questions of rights and freedoms are not a popularity contest.
No, they should not - and it's a crying shame that Mr. Phillips rights and freedoms are being trashed by a depraved and anti-Christ minority.
He has EVERY right to decline baking a cake for anyone - I don't care who they are or what their event is. THAT is the central point here, and you are trying to overshadow that by harping on minutia - distraction is a favorite of leftists.
Umm, no. He does not have that right. In my opinion, that's why he starts his editorial with an adamant claim that he'll sell a cake to anyone. He'd be in some legal hot water if that were not the case.
Of course he does - and the fact that you state, "Umm, no" just proves the case that you have zero concept of actual rights and freedom - but you've stated before that you're a liberal, so it goes without saying that that is your understanding. If we're at the point in this country where the evil gov't can dictate who private businesses can and can't sell to, then fold up the tent - it's all over. And I realize we are pretty much at that point, and that it is all over - we're just waiting for the jackbooted foot to drop. It will drop on your neck just as much as mine - something else leftists don't seem to grasp.
And now I'm going to take Silver's and my own advice, and not engage with you anymore - no hard feelings. I'm off to finish my Christmas shopping. :)

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by MMbelieve »

Vision wrote: December 4th, 2017, 3:46 pm
alaris wrote: December 4th, 2017, 3:27 pm
Vision wrote: December 4th, 2017, 2:53 pm
Michelle wrote: December 4th, 2017, 11:17 am

They don't care if the customer is gay or straight: they care that they don't endorse something against their conscience.
Did the bakery owner only sale wedding cakes to virgins? Nice random application of conscience.
If someone asked for a cake endorsing premarital sex, they possibly would have been against that as well. The issue isn't about a random application of conscience but whether the state can force individuals to provide goods and services that conflict with religious views. This issue is a slippery slope that ends in the state forcing the LDS church to perform gay marriages in temples. The adversary is real and the LDS church is absolutely at the center of his cross-hairs.

EmmaLee was right to post this and the David O McKay quote she shared is spot on.
Alaris

The Church will get out of the marriage business before they ever marry any gays in the temple. Before you go reacting, many temples around the world only perform sealings because the governments in those countries don't allow ecclisastical marriage.

This is completely about random application of conscience. If the shop owner had just sold the cake and not judged the gay men trying to buy the cake this would not even be a court case. Leave judgements to God. If someone sue thee, give them thy cloak also.

I never said Emmalee wasn't right to post this, I just disagree with this being about religious freedom. The original act was about buying a cake, it evolved into a fight about religious freedom/gay rights
I agree, we can all focus on what it turned into and feel threaten by it and fight to stay free but if we take a step back and see that it was just a cake then perhaps we can recognize that the fight was unnecessary and brought on by inappropriate behavior of a shop owner.

I agree that he shouldn't have been so judgemental and instead expressed his true Christian heart by loving his "enemies". It was a cake, not a sustaining of their specific marriage no more than him sustaining the marriage of any of the other sinners he baked cakes for.

But it's a big issue now and people are all worried about it. So now we have to deal with.

I don't want to lose religious freedom either and I hope that all the right decisions are made by those in charge...but really it is about a cake and law makers will see it as a Christian shop owner trying to use a "right" of religion and refuse or discriminate in a public setting and place of business. If we lose religious freedoms because of this then shame on the man who started it and turned it into way more than it ever needed to be.

Starting our own sparks then complaining of the fire is kinda wacky.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Alaris »

MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:06 pm
Vision wrote: December 4th, 2017, 3:46 pm
alaris wrote: December 4th, 2017, 3:27 pm
Vision wrote: December 4th, 2017, 2:53 pm

Did the bakery owner only sale wedding cakes to virgins? Nice random application of conscience.
If someone asked for a cake endorsing premarital sex, they possibly would have been against that as well. The issue isn't about a random application of conscience but whether the state can force individuals to provide goods and services that conflict with religious views. This issue is a slippery slope that ends in the state forcing the LDS church to perform gay marriages in temples. The adversary is real and the LDS church is absolutely at the center of his cross-hairs.

EmmaLee was right to post this and the David O McKay quote she shared is spot on.
Alaris

The Church will get out of the marriage business before they ever marry any gays in the temple. Before you go reacting, many temples around the world only perform sealings because the governments in those countries don't allow ecclisastical marriage.

This is completely about random application of conscience. If the shop owner had just sold the cake and not judged the gay men trying to buy the cake this would not even be a court case. Leave judgements to God. If someone sue thee, give them thy cloak also.

I never said Emmalee wasn't right to post this, I just disagree with this being about religious freedom. The original act was about buying a cake, it evolved into a fight about religious freedom/gay rights
I agree, we can all focus on what it turned into and feel threaten by it and fight to stay free but if we take a step back and see that it was just a cake then perhaps we can recognize that the fight was unnecessary and brought on by inappropriate behavior of a shop owner.

I agree that he shouldn't have been so judgemental and instead expressed his true Christian heart by loving his "enemies". It was a cake, not a sustaining of their specific marriage no more than him sustaining the marriage of any of the other sinners he baked cakes for.

But it's a big issue now and people are all worried about it. So now we have to deal with.

I don't want to lose religious freedom either and I hope that all the right decisions are made by those in charge...but really it is about a cake and law makers will see it as a Christian shop owner trying to use a "right" of religion and refuse or discriminate in a public setting and place of business. If we lose religious freedoms because of this then shame on the man who started it and turned it into way more than it ever needed to be.

Starting our own sparks then complaining of the fire is kinda wacky.
This fight existed for far longer than this world has existed - losing liberty would not be the result of a baker but of the forces of the adversary and their control over the hearts and minds of those who subject themselves unto him. This isn't due to a refusal to bake a cake but to a court ruling of a state-enforced dogma by those who list to obey the adversary, which is only a symptom of a deep infection in our government.
Last edited by Alaris on December 5th, 2017, 4:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by MMbelieve »

alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:34 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:06 pm
Vision wrote: December 4th, 2017, 3:46 pm
alaris wrote: December 4th, 2017, 3:27 pm

If someone asked for a cake endorsing premarital sex, they possibly would have been against that as well. The issue isn't about a random application of conscience but whether the state can force individuals to provide goods and services that conflict with religious views. This issue is a slippery slope that ends in the state forcing the LDS church to perform gay marriages in temples. The adversary is real and the LDS church is absolutely at the center of his cross-hairs.

EmmaLee was right to post this and the David O McKay quote she shared is spot on.
Alaris

The Church will get out of the marriage business before they ever marry any gays in the temple. Before you go reacting, many temples around the world only perform sealings because the governments in those countries don't allow ecclisastical marriage.

This is completely about random application of conscience. If the shop owner had just sold the cake and not judged the gay men trying to buy the cake this would not even be a court case. Leave judgements to God. If someone sue thee, give them thy cloak also.

I never said Emmalee wasn't right to post this, I just disagree with this being about religious freedom. The original act was about buying a cake, it evolved into a fight about religious freedom/gay rights
I agree, we can all focus on what it turned into and feel threaten by it and fight to stay free but if we take a step back and see that it was just a cake then perhaps we can recognize that the fight was unnecessary and brought on by inappropriate behavior of a shop owner.

I agree that he shouldn't have been so judgemental and instead expressed his true Christian heart by loving his "enemies". It was a cake, not a sustaining of their specific marriage no more than him sustaining the marriage of any of the other sinners he baked cakes for.

But it's a big issue now and people are all worried about it. So now we have to deal with.

I don't want to lose religious freedom either and I hope that all the right decisions are made by those in charge...but really it is about a cake and law makers will see it as a Christian shop owner trying to use a "right" of religion and refuse or discriminate in a public setting and place of business. If we lose religious freedoms because of this then shame on the man who started it and turned it into way more than it ever needed to be.

Starting our own sparks then complaining of the fire is kinda wacky.
This fight existed for far longer than this world has existed - losing liberty would not be the result of a baker but of the forces of the adversary and their control over the hearts and minds of those who subject themselves unto him. This isn't due to a refusal to bake a cake but to a court ruling of a state-enforced dogma by those who list to obey the adversary.
state forced....the state mandates that we don't discriminate in the hiring of individuals to work. And it mandates that we don't discriminate in providing business services to customers either...or is that a bad thing?

Yes the fight of good vs evil has been ongoing, that I agree. And evil will take advantage of any kind of hiccup, even as small as a man refusing to bake a cake.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Alaris »

MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:42 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:34 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:06 pm
Vision wrote: December 4th, 2017, 3:46 pm

Alaris

The Church will get out of the marriage business before they ever marry any gays in the temple. Before you go reacting, many temples around the world only perform sealings because the governments in those countries don't allow ecclisastical marriage.

This is completely about random application of conscience. If the shop owner had just sold the cake and not judged the gay men trying to buy the cake this would not even be a court case. Leave judgements to God. If someone sue thee, give them thy cloak also.

I never said Emmalee wasn't right to post this, I just disagree with this being about religious freedom. The original act was about buying a cake, it evolved into a fight about religious freedom/gay rights
I agree, we can all focus on what it turned into and feel threaten by it and fight to stay free but if we take a step back and see that it was just a cake then perhaps we can recognize that the fight was unnecessary and brought on by inappropriate behavior of a shop owner.

I agree that he shouldn't have been so judgemental and instead expressed his true Christian heart by loving his "enemies". It was a cake, not a sustaining of their specific marriage no more than him sustaining the marriage of any of the other sinners he baked cakes for.

But it's a big issue now and people are all worried about it. So now we have to deal with.

I don't want to lose religious freedom either and I hope that all the right decisions are made by those in charge...but really it is about a cake and law makers will see it as a Christian shop owner trying to use a "right" of religion and refuse or discriminate in a public setting and place of business. If we lose religious freedoms because of this then shame on the man who started it and turned it into way more than it ever needed to be.

Starting our own sparks then complaining of the fire is kinda wacky.
This fight existed for far longer than this world has existed - losing liberty would not be the result of a baker but of the forces of the adversary and their control over the hearts and minds of those who subject themselves unto him. This isn't due to a refusal to bake a cake but to a court ruling of a state-enforced dogma by those who list to obey the adversary.
state forced....the state mandates that we don't discriminate in the hiring of individuals to work. And it mandates that we don't discriminate in providing business services to customers either...or is that a bad thing?

Yes the fight of good vs evil has been ongoing, that I agree. And evil will take advantage of any kind of hiccup, even as small as a man refusing to bake a cake.
Quotas and state mandates discriminate against white people, so yes that is already bad and is a far cry from MLK's dream. State mandates forcing you to provide goods and services is a huge step towards compulsion, oppression, and even slavery: if I force you to bake a cake or else - what is that called? This is a poor mask for the devil's end game - removing agency layer by layer.

Edit: How is this not obviously bad to anyone who thinks this process through? Let's say the SC upholds the ruling and says, "You must bake cakes for gay people or else!" What then? When a gay couple comes into your place of business and starts escalating the issue to the next level of compliance***, then this ruling would be the precedent upon which future rulings are made!
Should we the people have a little fear in our hearts while doing business? I better comply with state dogma or else! THIS IS FACISM! Should I not be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason? If I walk into a place of business and they hurt my feelings by refusing my patronage, should I then go to nanny state and have them compelled to serve me??? OF COURSE NOT. This is pure nonsense.

***Let's be clear - the gay agenda will NEVER ever be satisfied by its very nature as it is contrary to the nature of happiness and will never stop until they are at your door demanding you send your two guests outside for a forcible act of compliance. Didn't #LOVEWON? Nope. Now people must be forced into acceptance. Forced compliance is followed by forced acceptance. Little by little - bit by bit. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a fairy tale.This is not just happening here but all over the world. This is a sign of the times ladies and gentlemen.

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by MMbelieve »

alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:45 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:42 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:34 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:06 pm

I agree, we can all focus on what it turned into and feel threaten by it and fight to stay free but if we take a step back and see that it was just a cake then perhaps we can recognize that the fight was unnecessary and brought on by inappropriate behavior of a shop owner.

I agree that he shouldn't have been so judgemental and instead expressed his true Christian heart by loving his "enemies". It was a cake, not a sustaining of their specific marriage no more than him sustaining the marriage of any of the other sinners he baked cakes for.

But it's a big issue now and people are all worried about it. So now we have to deal with.

I don't want to lose religious freedom either and I hope that all the right decisions are made by those in charge...but really it is about a cake and law makers will see it as a Christian shop owner trying to use a "right" of religion and refuse or discriminate in a public setting and place of business. If we lose religious freedoms because of this then shame on the man who started it and turned it into way more than it ever needed to be.

Starting our own sparks then complaining of the fire is kinda wacky.
This fight existed for far longer than this world has existed - losing liberty would not be the result of a baker but of the forces of the adversary and their control over the hearts and minds of those who subject themselves unto him. This isn't due to a refusal to bake a cake but to a court ruling of a state-enforced dogma by those who list to obey the adversary.
state forced....the state mandates that we don't discriminate in the hiring of individuals to work. And it mandates that we don't discriminate in providing business services to customers either...or is that a bad thing?

Yes the fight of good vs evil has been ongoing, that I agree. And evil will take advantage of any kind of hiccup, even as small as a man refusing to bake a cake.
Quotas and state mandates discriminate against white people, so yes that is already bad and is a far cry from MLK's dream. State mandates forcing you to provide goods and services is a huge step towards compulsion, oppression, and even slavery: if I force you to bake a cake or else - what is that called? This is a poor mask for the devil's end game - removing agency layer by layer.

Edit: How is this not obviously bad to anyone who thinks this process through? Let's say the SC upholds the ruling and says, "You must bake cakes for gay people or else!" What then? When a gay couple comes into your place of business and starts escalating the issue to the next level of compliance***, then this ruling would be the precedent upon which future rulings are made!
Should we the people have a little fear in our hearts while doing business? I better comply with state dogma or else! THIS IS FACISM! Should I not be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason? If I walk into a place of business and they hurt my feelings by refusing my patronage, should I then go to nanny state and have them compelled to serve me??? OF COURSE NOT. This is pure nonsense.

***Let's be clear - the gay agenda will NEVER ever be satisfied by its very nature as it is contrary to the nature of happiness and will never stop until they are at your door demanding you send your two guests outside for a forcible act of compliance. Didn't #LOVEWON? Nope. Now people must be forced into acceptance. Forced compliance is followed by forced acceptance. Little by little - bit by bit. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a fairy tale.This is not just happening here but all over the world. This is a sign of the times ladies and gentlemen.
What about the do not discriminate when hiring? Good, bad?

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Alaris »

MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 3:14 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:45 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:42 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:34 pm

This fight existed for far longer than this world has existed - losing liberty would not be the result of a baker but of the forces of the adversary and their control over the hearts and minds of those who subject themselves unto him. This isn't due to a refusal to bake a cake but to a court ruling of a state-enforced dogma by those who list to obey the adversary.
state forced....the state mandates that we don't discriminate in the hiring of individuals to work. And it mandates that we don't discriminate in providing business services to customers either...or is that a bad thing?

Yes the fight of good vs evil has been ongoing, that I agree. And evil will take advantage of any kind of hiccup, even as small as a man refusing to bake a cake.
Quotas and state mandates discriminate against white people, so yes that is already bad and is a far cry from MLK's dream. State mandates forcing you to provide goods and services is a huge step towards compulsion, oppression, and even slavery: if I force you to bake a cake or else - what is that called? This is a poor mask for the devil's end game - removing agency layer by layer.

Edit: How is this not obviously bad to anyone who thinks this process through? Let's say the SC upholds the ruling and says, "You must bake cakes for gay people or else!" What then? When a gay couple comes into your place of business and starts escalating the issue to the next level of compliance***, then this ruling would be the precedent upon which future rulings are made!
Should we the people have a little fear in our hearts while doing business? I better comply with state dogma or else! THIS IS FACISM! Should I not be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason? If I walk into a place of business and they hurt my feelings by refusing my patronage, should I then go to nanny state and have them compelled to serve me??? OF COURSE NOT. This is pure nonsense.

***Let's be clear - the gay agenda will NEVER ever be satisfied by its very nature as it is contrary to the nature of happiness and will never stop until they are at your door demanding you send your two guests outside for a forcible act of compliance. Didn't #LOVEWON? Nope. Now people must be forced into acceptance. Forced compliance is followed by forced acceptance. Little by little - bit by bit. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a fairy tale.This is not just happening here but all over the world. This is a sign of the times ladies and gentlemen.
What about the do not discriminate when hiring? Good, bad?
Firstly, great thought-provoking question. I wish you had asked "what about quotas? good? bad?" That's an easy answer that would require few words. I hope answering your question does not derail the thread too far, but discrimination may be close enough. Unless EmmaLee objects ...

Let's define discriminate:

discriminate (dĭ-skrĭmˈə-nātˌ)►
v. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
v. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
v. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

So "do not discriminate when hiring" would make hiring a quality candidate impossible. I remember my first few jobs in California with the anti-discimination laws pasted all over the walls. IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE BASED OFF AGE, GENDER, RELIGIOUS PERSUASION, RACE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, etc. etc.

There are several problems with this law:

Problem # 1: The first two definitions of "Discrimination" are good. Everyone discriminates in a good way if they are a good hiring manager. A good hiring manager looks for any red flags or personality quirks that may affect their bottom line. Discrimination has become a bad word when it really shouldn't be in every case. Hiring a man for a women's locker room attendant is good discrimination (maybe this is a bad example now with LBGTQLMNOP--actually LGBQTURSYZ is a great example of "discrimination" taken way too far.)
Problem # 2: How do you prove someone was discriminated against wrongly? Ben Shapiro classically fights racism platitudes with, "Rather than presume institutional racism, show me instances of racism and I will stand beside you and fight it." Nobody ever has taken him up on the offer because "racism" is used a pretext of sweeping control, even thought control, rather than something that can be fought tangibly, one battle at a time. Like "racism," "discrimination" can be used as a pretext of control, which is exactly on-topic here (whew I circled it back on topic. *bow* *bow*) This leads to problem # 3:
Problem # 3: Should a state be forcing people to use acceptable discrimination? If the state doesn't force people to discriminate "nicely" then could we somehow police ourselves?
Problem # 4: Our justice system is rife with corruption, leftism, and judicial overreach. With the Supreme Court making laws from the bench, the ninth circuit court, judges blocking travel bans, the colorado court, and every court or judge who bend, twist, make, and break laws to fit their leftism.
Problem # 5: "Discrimination" can and does conflict with the God-given right of religious liberty. This is the devil's end game. Make ... no ... mistake.


As for Problem # 3, we already do police ourselves. Here's an example of policing from the right:

Kellogs:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... breitbart/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=breitbart+kel ... 0-1&ia=web

And here's an example of policing from the left:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/03/technol ... index.html

Both are cases of self-policed discrimination. Kellogg's discriminated against conservatives. Mozilla's CEO "discriminated" against gay people...OK well he just donated money to an anti-gay marriage campaign. Still, Mozilla policed their perception of discrimination. Do we really need the nanny state to force us to play nice when hiring and firing people? Should people be compelled to buy Kellogs if the nanny states deems that Breitbart's boycott was unfair? Should Breitbart be punished? Should the nanny state force Mozilla to rehire their CEO if they deem the firing was unfair. Or is all of this self-policing fair?

However, Problem # 5 is the crux of the matter. Discrimination is bad when it furthers the adversary's end game and conflicts with religious liberty. There is the answer to your question. I found a great quote from Ben Shapiro about this very matter that is relevant to this thread. This is from a breitbart article back in 2014 (back when Ben worked there) regarding a law that was proposed in Arizona, of all places**, that would have secured God-given religious liberty rights against the ever-encroaching tide of anti-discrimination laws:
The [proposed] law only provides religious people with an excuse to pick and choose clients if they can prove actual religious adherence (which, by the way, should offend atheists, who should have the same First Amendment right to associate as religious Americans).

The [proposed] law also makes clear what should be clear from the text of the First Amendment: religious practice is not restricted to your church or your home. Individuals operating businesses have a right to act in accordance with their religion at work. The law also states that religious businessowners can defend lawsuits using the law against other private parties, not merely government prosecution.

This is the essence of American religious freedom. The disgusting attempt to use government to run roughshod over that religious freedom is blatantly unconstitutional. The law, which simply reinforces that, should be unobjectionable to anyone who actually believes in freedom of religion. Unfortunately, many on the left simply do not. ~ Ben Shapiro
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... eedom-law/

** Doesn't it seem like Arizona is the Alamo against the tide of leftism encroachment?

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by h_p »

MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 3:14 pm What about the do not discriminate when hiring? Good, bad?
Companies that hire based on anything other than relevant qualification for the job will suffer the consequences in the market place. Other than that, people should be free to associate with whomever they please. And not associate with whomever they don't.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Alaris »

h_p wrote: December 5th, 2017, 4:25 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 3:14 pm What about the do not discriminate when hiring? Good, bad?
Companies that hire based on anything other than relevant qualification for the job will suffer the consequences in the market place. Other than that, people should be free to associate with whomever they please. And not associate with whomever they don't.
Sure, go ahead and make a better point in three sentences than I could with paragraphs, definitions, links, and quotes. I sometimes wonder just how much PC nonsense has infected me from growing up in California along with general societal influence.

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Vision »

alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:45 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:42 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:34 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:06 pm

I agree, we can all focus on what it turned into and feel threaten by it and fight to stay free but if we take a step back and see that it was just a cake then perhaps we can recognize that the fight was unnecessary and brought on by inappropriate behavior of a shop owner.

I agree that he shouldn't have been so judgemental and instead expressed his true Christian heart by loving his "enemies". It was a cake, not a sustaining of their specific marriage no more than him sustaining the marriage of any of the other sinners he baked cakes for.

But it's a big issue now and people are all worried about it. So now we have to deal with.

I don't want to lose religious freedom either and I hope that all the right decisions are made by those in charge...but really it is about a cake and law makers will see it as a Christian shop owner trying to use a "right" of religion and refuse or discriminate in a public setting and place of business. If we lose religious freedoms because of this then shame on the man who started it and turned it into way more than it ever needed to be.

Starting our own sparks then complaining of the fire is kinda wacky.
This fight existed for far longer than this world has existed - losing liberty would not be the result of a baker but of the forces of the adversary and their control over the hearts and minds of those who subject themselves unto him. This isn't due to a refusal to bake a cake but to a court ruling of a state-enforced dogma by those who list to obey the adversary.
state forced....the state mandates that we don't discriminate in the hiring of individuals to work. And it mandates that we don't discriminate in providing business services to customers either...or is that a bad thing?

Yes the fight of good vs evil has been ongoing, that I agree. And evil will take advantage of any kind of hiccup, even as small as a man refusing to bake a cake.
Quotas and state mandates discriminate against white people, so yes that is already bad and is a far cry from MLK's dream. State mandates forcing you to provide goods and services is a huge step towards compulsion, oppression, and even slavery: if I force you to bake a cake or else - what is that called? This is a poor mask for the devil's end game - removing agency layer by layer.

Edit: How is this not obviously bad to anyone who thinks this process through? Let's say the SC upholds the ruling and says, "You must bake cakes for gay people or else!" What then? When a gay couple comes into your place of business and starts escalating the issue to the next level of compliance***, then this ruling would be the precedent upon which future rulings are made!
Should we the people have a little fear in our hearts while doing business? I better comply with state dogma or else! THIS IS FACISM! Should I not be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason? If I walk into a place of business and they hurt my feelings by refusing my patronage, should I then go to nanny state and have them compelled to serve me??? OF COURSE NOT. This is pure nonsense.

***Let's be clear - the gay agenda will NEVER ever be satisfied by its very nature as it is contrary to the nature of happiness and will never stop until they are at your door demanding you send your two guests outside for a forcible act of compliance. Didn't #LOVEWON? Nope. Now people must be forced into acceptance. Forced compliance is followed by forced acceptance. Little by little - bit by bit. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a fairy tale.This is not just happening here but all over the world. This is a sign of the times ladies and gentlemen.
Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Alaris »

Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 5:56 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:45 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:42 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:34 pm

This fight existed for far longer than this world has existed - losing liberty would not be the result of a baker but of the forces of the adversary and their control over the hearts and minds of those who subject themselves unto him. This isn't due to a refusal to bake a cake but to a court ruling of a state-enforced dogma by those who list to obey the adversary.
state forced....the state mandates that we don't discriminate in the hiring of individuals to work. And it mandates that we don't discriminate in providing business services to customers either...or is that a bad thing?

Yes the fight of good vs evil has been ongoing, that I agree. And evil will take advantage of any kind of hiccup, even as small as a man refusing to bake a cake.
Quotas and state mandates discriminate against white people, so yes that is already bad and is a far cry from MLK's dream. State mandates forcing you to provide goods and services is a huge step towards compulsion, oppression, and even slavery: if I force you to bake a cake or else - what is that called? This is a poor mask for the devil's end game - removing agency layer by layer.

Edit: How is this not obviously bad to anyone who thinks this process through? Let's say the SC upholds the ruling and says, "You must bake cakes for gay people or else!" What then? When a gay couple comes into your place of business and starts escalating the issue to the next level of compliance***, then this ruling would be the precedent upon which future rulings are made!
Should we the people have a little fear in our hearts while doing business? I better comply with state dogma or else! THIS IS FACISM! Should I not be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason? If I walk into a place of business and they hurt my feelings by refusing my patronage, should I then go to nanny state and have them compelled to serve me??? OF COURSE NOT. This is pure nonsense.

***Let's be clear - the gay agenda will NEVER ever be satisfied by its very nature as it is contrary to the nature of happiness and will never stop until they are at your door demanding you send your two guests outside for a forcible act of compliance. Didn't #LOVEWON? Nope. Now people must be forced into acceptance. Forced compliance is followed by forced acceptance. Little by little - bit by bit. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a fairy tale.This is not just happening here but all over the world. This is a sign of the times ladies and gentlemen.
Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.
Vision, it's freaking facism to have a state force you to comply with their dogma. This has nothing to do with loving the sinner or uptightedness. I have a gay boss - best boss I have ever had. Yay us!

State induced penalties for not selling cakes should scare you. Facism. Facism bad.

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Vision »

alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 5:56 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:45 pm
MMbelieve wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:42 pm

state forced....the state mandates that we don't discriminate in the hiring of individuals to work. And it mandates that we don't discriminate in providing business services to customers either...or is that a bad thing?

Yes the fight of good vs evil has been ongoing, that I agree. And evil will take advantage of any kind of hiccup, even as small as a man refusing to bake a cake.
Quotas and state mandates discriminate against white people, so yes that is already bad and is a far cry from MLK's dream. State mandates forcing you to provide goods and services is a huge step towards compulsion, oppression, and even slavery: if I force you to bake a cake or else - what is that called? This is a poor mask for the devil's end game - removing agency layer by layer.

Edit: How is this not obviously bad to anyone who thinks this process through? Let's say the SC upholds the ruling and says, "You must bake cakes for gay people or else!" What then? When a gay couple comes into your place of business and starts escalating the issue to the next level of compliance***, then this ruling would be the precedent upon which future rulings are made!
Should we the people have a little fear in our hearts while doing business? I better comply with state dogma or else! THIS IS FACISM! Should I not be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason? If I walk into a place of business and they hurt my feelings by refusing my patronage, should I then go to nanny state and have them compelled to serve me??? OF COURSE NOT. This is pure nonsense.

***Let's be clear - the gay agenda will NEVER ever be satisfied by its very nature as it is contrary to the nature of happiness and will never stop until they are at your door demanding you send your two guests outside for a forcible act of compliance. Didn't #LOVEWON? Nope. Now people must be forced into acceptance. Forced compliance is followed by forced acceptance. Little by little - bit by bit. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a fairy tale.This is not just happening here but all over the world. This is a sign of the times ladies and gentlemen.
Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.
Vision, it's freaking facism to have a state force you to comply with their dogma. This has nothing to do with loving the sinner or uptightedness. I have a gay boss - best boss I have ever had. Yay us!

State induced penalties for not selling cakes should scare you. Facism. Facism bad.

The Saints fled the United States so they could have freedom of religion.Once they accepted Statehood they accepted bondage of the United States. Get over it we haven't been free for along time.

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by h_p »

Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 5:56 pm Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.
That's all fine and good, but all you just described is your willingness to associate with people you want to be with. We all agree. Nobody is debating that. What this court case is about is the opposite: whether someone should be *forced,* under threat of violence, to associate with someone they don't want to be around.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Alaris »

Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 7:05 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 5:56 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 2:45 pm

Quotas and state mandates discriminate against white people, so yes that is already bad and is a far cry from MLK's dream. State mandates forcing you to provide goods and services is a huge step towards compulsion, oppression, and even slavery: if I force you to bake a cake or else - what is that called? This is a poor mask for the devil's end game - removing agency layer by layer.

Edit: How is this not obviously bad to anyone who thinks this process through? Let's say the SC upholds the ruling and says, "You must bake cakes for gay people or else!" What then? When a gay couple comes into your place of business and starts escalating the issue to the next level of compliance***, then this ruling would be the precedent upon which future rulings are made!
Should we the people have a little fear in our hearts while doing business? I better comply with state dogma or else! THIS IS FACISM! Should I not be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason? If I walk into a place of business and they hurt my feelings by refusing my patronage, should I then go to nanny state and have them compelled to serve me??? OF COURSE NOT. This is pure nonsense.

***Let's be clear - the gay agenda will NEVER ever be satisfied by its very nature as it is contrary to the nature of happiness and will never stop until they are at your door demanding you send your two guests outside for a forcible act of compliance. Didn't #LOVEWON? Nope. Now people must be forced into acceptance. Forced compliance is followed by forced acceptance. Little by little - bit by bit. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a fairy tale.This is not just happening here but all over the world. This is a sign of the times ladies and gentlemen.
Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.
Vision, it's freaking facism to have a state force you to comply with their dogma. This has nothing to do with loving the sinner or uptightedness. I have a gay boss - best boss I have ever had. Yay us!

State induced penalties for not selling cakes should scare you. Facism. Facism bad.

The Saints fled the United States so they could have freedom of religion.Once they accepted Statehood they accepted bondage of the United States. Get over it we haven't been free for along time.
Just like the other Germans got over fascism? No thanks. I'll fight it here and now.

If the shoe were on the other foot would the left be in favor of the government forcing Gays to make Christian wedding cakes? They'd be outraged. Fascism. The same powers are behind it now as were behind it then. This is the same war that has always existed. The fact that the violation of the first commandment is the pretext upon which this war is being fought now is not a coincidence.

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Vision »

h_p wrote: December 5th, 2017, 7:45 pm
Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 5:56 pm Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.
That's all fine and good, but all you just described is your willingness to associate with people you want to be with. We all agree. Nobody is debating that. What this court case is about is the opposite: whether someone should be *forced,* under threat of violence, to associate with someone they don't want to be around.
h_p this court case would not even exist if Phillips had not forced his religious views into his business. It was his decision that started the dispute. When you acknowledge these facts how can you not see that Phillips brought this trouble on himself. Had he followed the Saviors words to turn the other cheek none of this would be happening. Yes it is Phillips business and he has the right to conduct business how he see's fit but he his not free of the consequences of his choices. The escalation of this case to where it stands today is nothing but consequences from the original decision.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by David13 »

Vision wrote: December 6th, 2017, 7:32 am
h_p wrote: December 5th, 2017, 7:45 pm
Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 5:56 pm Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.
That's all fine and good, but all you just described is your willingness to associate with people you want to be with. We all agree. Nobody is debating that. What this court case is about is the opposite: whether someone should be *forced,* under threat of violence, to associate with someone they don't want to be around.
h_p this court case would not even exist if Phillips had not forced his religious views into his business. It was his decision that started the dispute. When you acknowledge these facts how can you not see that Phillips brought this trouble on himself. Had he followed the Saviors words to turn the other cheek none of this would be happening. Yes it is Phillips business and he has the right to conduct business how he see's fit but he his not free of the consequences of his choices. The escalation of this case to where it stands today is nothing but consequences from the original decision.

No. He is an artist. And they have said he must use his art as they say, not as he says. It would be as if Picasso was ordered to paint baseball and football paintings, when he didn't want to.
dc

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Vision »

David13 wrote: December 6th, 2017, 7:45 am
Vision wrote: December 6th, 2017, 7:32 am
h_p wrote: December 5th, 2017, 7:45 pm
Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 5:56 pm Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.
That's all fine and good, but all you just described is your willingness to associate with people you want to be with. We all agree. Nobody is debating that. What this court case is about is the opposite: whether someone should be *forced,* under threat of violence, to associate with someone they don't want to be around.
h_p this court case would not even exist if Phillips had not forced his religious views into his business. It was his decision that started the dispute. When you acknowledge these facts how can you not see that Phillips brought this trouble on himself. Had he followed the Saviors words to turn the other cheek none of this would be happening. Yes it is Phillips business and he has the right to conduct business how he see's fit but he his not free of the consequences of his choices. The escalation of this case to where it stands today is nothing but consequences from the original decision.

No. He is an artist. And they have said he must use his art as they say, not as he says. It would be as if Picasso was ordered to paint baseball and football paintings, when he didn't want to.
dc
If Picasso was commissioned to paint baseballs he would paint baseballs and they would be worth millions today.

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by Vision »

alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 8:20 pm
Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 7:05 pm
alaris wrote: December 5th, 2017, 6:06 pm
Vision wrote: December 5th, 2017, 5:56 pm

Alaris, its a freaking cake. I can't discriminate in my business based upon familial status and I've worked with same sex couples and all that has done for me is make really nice friends. I home taught 2 gay men living together and we have a great relationship. I was sad to see them move. If Christians would stop being so damn uptight about everything 90% of our troubles would go away on there own.
Vision, it's freaking facism to have a state force you to comply with their dogma. This has nothing to do with loving the sinner or uptightedness. I have a gay boss - best boss I have ever had. Yay us!

State induced penalties for not selling cakes should scare you. Facism. Facism bad.

The Saints fled the United States so they could have freedom of religion.Once they accepted Statehood they accepted bondage of the United States. Get over it we haven't been free for along time.
Just like the other Germans got over fascism? No thanks. I'll fight it here and now.

If the shoe were on the other foot would the left be in favor of the government forcing Gays to make Christian wedding cakes? They'd be outraged. Fascism. The same powers are behind it now as were behind it then. This is the same war that has always existed. The fact that the violation of the first commandment is the pretext upon which this war is being fought now is not a coincidence.
Show me one aspect of Society that is not governed by local,state or federal control or all three? A bakery has to have an annual business license, is subject to random inspections from the health department, must pay sales taxes on goods sold, pay workers compensation taxes, get a building permit to build the bakery, pay taxes on any machinery purchased, pay fee's to the landlord so that he can pay property taxes, license vehicles annually used in the business, pay taxes on utilities used, maintain insurance or face closure. All under the threat of violence if you do not comply. What freedoms do we have again, please tell me?

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by h_p »

Vision wrote: December 6th, 2017, 7:32 am h_p this court case would not even exist if Phillips had not forced his religious views into his business. It was his decision that started the dispute. When you acknowledge these facts how can you not see that Phillips brought this trouble on himself. Had he followed the Saviors words to turn the other cheek none of this would be happening. Yes it is Phillips business and he has the right to conduct business how he see's fit but he his not free of the consequences of his choices. The escalation of this case to where it stands today is nothing but consequences from the original decision.
Consequences for his actions would be people taking their business elsewhere because they don't like the guy. What you're talking about is State coercion under implied threat of violence. That's what government enforcement of law is.

No-one should be forced to divorce his religious views from his daily actions, including the way he conducts his business. Anyone disagreeing with his choices are still free to shop somewhere else. But they don't have the right to force him to do something that he believes would violate his religious beliefs.

Should a gay-owned bakery be forced to make a cake for a Westboro Baptist church wedding that says "God hates fags"? Or how about all the fashion designers that were refusing to make dresses for Melania Trump earlier this year? Should they be sued or forced out of business? Nobody seemed to be getting all up in their faces about that.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by David13 »

Vision wrote: December 6th, 2017, 7:58 am
David13 wrote: December 6th, 2017, 7:45 am
Vision wrote: December 6th, 2017, 7:32 am
h_p wrote: December 5th, 2017, 7:45 pm

That's all fine and good, but all you just described is your willingness to associate with people you want to be with. We all agree. Nobody is debating that. What this court case is about is the opposite: whether someone should be *forced,* under threat of violence, to associate with someone they don't want to be around.
h_p this court case would not even exist if Phillips had not forced his religious views into his business. It was his decision that started the dispute. When you acknowledge these facts how can you not see that Phillips brought this trouble on himself. Had he followed the Saviors words to turn the other cheek none of this would be happening. Yes it is Phillips business and he has the right to conduct business how he see's fit but he his not free of the consequences of his choices. The escalation of this case to where it stands today is nothing but consequences from the original decision.

No. He is an artist. And they have said he must use his art as they say, not as he says. It would be as if Picasso was ordered to paint baseball and football paintings, when he didn't want to.
dc
If Picasso was commissioned to paint baseballs he would paint baseballs and they would be worth millions today.

You miss the point entirely.
If he didn't want to paint baseballs, he should not be ordered by a court to paint baseballs. And I don't think he would.
dc

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by h_p »

Vision wrote: December 6th, 2017, 8:00 am Show me one aspect of Society that is not governed by local,state or federal control or all three? A bakery has to have an annual business license, is subject to random inspections from the health department, must pay sales taxes on goods sold, pay workers compensation taxes, get a building permit to build the bakery, pay taxes on any machinery purchased, pay fee's to the landlord so that he can pay property taxes, license vehicles annually used in the business, pay taxes on utilities used, maintain insurance or face closure. All under the threat of violence if you do not comply.
I agree, we have way more government intrusion in our lives than we should have. I'm not seeing how that would convince me we should have more.
Vision wrote: What freedoms do we have again, please tell me?
I've been asking that same question, myself. :-( But religious freedom is one of the last dying embers of this once great nation that we have left. Let's not snuff that one out, too.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: SC Decision Will Affect Us All

Post by captainfearnot »

David13 wrote: December 6th, 2017, 8:08 am You miss the point entirely.
If he didn't want to paint baseballs, he should not be ordered by a court to paint baseballs. And I don't think he would.
The situation is more like if Picasso painted baseballs all the time, for people who displayed his baseball paintings in their homes and private galleries after buying them. And then someone from Monsanto walked in and said, hey we want you to do one of your famous baseball paintings for us, so we can display it in our office lobby downtown. And Picasso refused because everything about Monsanto sickens him, and he thinks that if he paints a baseball for the company that would be like voicing support for their horrible business practices.

Post Reply