Free speech will correct bad speech
freemindfade
JoinedPosts by freemindfade
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
freemindfade
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
freemindfade
Blown away I am not at all wrong. He ‘provides a service’ for straights -making personalised wedding cakes. He does not provide this service for those that are gay. This is called discrimination. The law should always be above somebody’s misguided conscience.
If you knew someone hated gay people and was being forced to make you a cake, would you as an individual really want a cake from them? You need to think more of the big picture ramifications, the market is going to make these people extinct because gay people will not want to use them and those of us that are not gay non-bigots won't want to use them either.
The knee-jerk reaction to take away rights can hurt not just them but everyone including you and the gay community, the moral of the story being, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. And again can you tell me how YOU john free, could tell if a baker, that didn't say anything more than "we are too busy, sorry," is a victory for gay people? The baker STILL discriminates, the only thing changing is his speech. That means no solution was achieved. You will STILL have to find a baker that isn't a bigot to make your cake.
Its not about feelings its about logic
Is the goal to stick it to religious people? Or to increase rights for everyone? I want the gay couples to get their cake, and they will. Stop making the government the referee, its not a good move
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
freemindfade
If someone wanted a MAGA cake making and a gay baker refused, would that baker be threatened and harassed and prosecuted for it? The law should not be used as a club for certain groups. If it is, then there is something wrong with the law. This decision corrected that in this case.
My point exactly
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
freemindfade
The law SHOULD protect these people against discrimination in the service industry.
But the law won't. All they have to do is say sorry, I'm booked. You can't ban how people think. You can shame them in nonexistence online, and censor what they say, but you can't criminalize thoughts. Laws just give people a false sense of accomplishment, beating those bad guys.
The law will not make homophobic people make cakes for gay people, it will simply limit their speech. End of story, they can still refuse service and give zero reasons. Discrimination still fully intact.
-
286
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple
by Simon inseems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
-
freemindfade
I believe free speech will correct bad speech and I also believe capitalism is a greater force for progress than anti-discrimination laws.
Jim Crow
Case and point, Jim Crow laws were ENFORCED segregation by the government. Why is that significant? Because a free market was causing people/businesses in the south who were NOT racist, to choose money over bigotry. The racists (people and businesses) clearly saw this as an advantage, not in their favor, so what did they do? Use the government to create laws that FORCED businesses to segregate. So society and business typically do not discriminate, yes there are and always will be bigots, but the free market idea is about making money. Not oppressing groups.
Free Speech not Religious Issue
What is seldom mentioned in this Colorado issue is the baker was willing to sell them any cake they had, so in effect, he was not discriminating against them for being gay as individuals, but when it came to preparing one of his unique and special cakes for the wedding, he didn't want to. THAT should be protected. It is his choice not to work with someone. What if it was a gay bakery and a Christian wanted them to put on a cake a homophobic scripture? Shouldn't the owners have the right to say I find this offensive (personally) and choose not to do it? What if a black baker is asked to make a cake for a skinhead wedding and put things on it that are highly offensive to them?
I get it, I hate that people are bigots, especially based on religion and the bible. But we have to preserve rights. Every time an opponent does something we don't like, we run to the government to make them stop, The government then usually would infringe on rights, for all! They basically make a blunt object to clobber them with that can then be used for others in a malevolent way.
We need to be careful. When you censor, when you restrict, you often embolden the other side and threaten multiple rights. It's a radical idea, but maybe we should allow people to openly discriminate, let them show who they are, the market will put them out of business because most people object to this behavior. If you have the government make more laws, they simply change their speech, still discriminate quietly without the burden of proof, and we are all left with the laws. This will probably not ever happen so we need to make clear and careful lines and consider all rights, just not what makes us angry, it's hard to play devil's advocate, but its the only way to proceed logically.
Why would you want someone who is bigoted towards you to make something for you?
Why would you want to be employed by someone you don't want to work for? To me, that is the issue. He was turning down employment in a way, not disallowing people to buy his damn cakes.
-
49
Favourite Quirky / Low Budget / Non-Mainstream Movies
by Simon inso the recent topic about film franchises got me thinking.
sure, we all love the big budget, mainstream releases that are so successful they spawn never-ending (it sometimes seems) sequels.
we could watch marvel and star-wars movies for the rest of our lives (and we might just ...).. but y'know what i love?
-
freemindfade
Tremors
Also,Road house, what a pony loaf of a film, a list actors in a c list film.
-
170
UK justice..
by zeb intommie robinson has reported often about what he sees as the demise of british society by the imposition of 'sharia' norms.. https://www.infowars.com/update-tommy-robinson-gets-13-months-for-livestreaming-outside-courthouse/?utm_source=nightly+newsletter&utm_campaign=9e3ceb30f6-email_campaign_2018_05_25_03_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e12661a83c-9e3ceb30f6-38680565.
yesterday he was jailed for 13 months for reporting outside a court in the uk.
his was a non violent offence.. what no community service?
-
freemindfade
1984
-
-
-
-
-
51
The political left, perfectly captured in one short video exchange
by Simon inthis perfectly encapsulates the behaviour and opinions of the left and dave rubin nails it - "you're not oppressed, you're entitled".. lots of of shouting and claims of being denied rights to speak but nothing really to say when given a mic, just endless shouting and baseless confused claims about 'free speech'.
hey, some blm bitches try and get in on it too because, why not.. constant "i have a question, i have a question ..." as though she isn't allowed to ask it when the reality is she really has nothing to say, she just wants to stop other people being able to talk.
what a stupid cunt.. sadly, the left is indoctrinating a generation to think that *this* is what political discourse and "taking a stand" is.
-
freemindfade
victimhood is not virtue