freemindfade

Joined

• started 193 topics
• posted 5,163 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by freemindfade

• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  What is the difference ?

  oh my sweet lord, please see above, jesus christ
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. Not a person...

  1. Phillips never turned any customer away due to their sexual orientation.
  2. The two gay men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were welcome to purchase any item in the store.
  3. They could have bought all the brownies and cookies and pies that their hearts and stomachs desired. They could have even bought a wedding cake.
  4. Their romantic interests were of no concern to Jack Phillips.
  5. He was not discriminating on that basis or any basis.

  Jack Phillips did not refuse service to gay people. He refused service to a gay wedding. He declined to make a special cake — a work of art — for a particular occasion that he determined to be morally objectionable.

  I don't know how to make that more plain

  This guy also:

  • Wouldn't make lewd bachelor party cakes.
  • He wouldn't make Halloween cakes.
  • He wouldn't make cakes for divorce parties.

  Does that mean he was discriminating against divorced people? Would it be fair to say that he "refused to serve the divorced"? Of course not. He just didn't want to direct his creative energies towards making something that would celebrate divorce.
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  He didn't break any laws. If you told them to get out of his store because they were gay, I am sure he'd have some problems. Choosing not to work for someone is not illegal in American thank god.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Lets reverse it a little, what if a gay couple owned a restaurant and they saw a two priests sit down at a table and asked to be served and the owners knowing these people are against gay relationships refused serving the priests and asked them to leave.

  You are still on the wrong track, one more time:

  Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. The point is that a business owner is free to think it good or bad and decide, based on that equation, whether he wants to be associated with it. If he decides against, he is not denying or rejecting a person.

  A gay catering company would be totally in their right to not cater a Catholic event, get it yet???
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  you're a true liberal, are you ttdtt?

  I would say no, he is a rabid leftist trying to badge himself as a classical liberal.
  
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. The point is that a business owner is free to think it good or bad and decide, based on that equation, whether he wants to be associated with it. If he decides against, he is not denying or rejecting a person.

  Can it be put any more simple than that?
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Why is there labor laws in most modernized countries that penalizes businesses for acting in prejudice against someone of certain religious affiliation or sexual identity (gay) ???

  Think of it the other way around, why would you choose to work for someone (as an employee) whose values (whatever those might be) were something you very strongly disagreed with.

  The baker, essentially chose not to work for them, the couple. You are framing it backward. labor discrimination and choosing not to work FOR someone are two different things. No one is going to go after an employee who is some fundamental religion and chose not to work for a cause they feel is immoral.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  The reason he was willing to sell the cakes he had already made is that he made the cakes for his business, not for a specific occasion.
  NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO YOUR LABOR, REGARDLESS OF THEIR GROUP IDENTITY.

  This
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  The market doesn't make an imposition on people, that is the government's job

  • Capitalism > Discrimination laws (more effective and aligned with culture)
  • Free speech will defeat bad speech
  • It's the baker's loss, not the gay couples

  Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake with a swastika on it?

  Does a business have a right to discriminate based on its owner personal values? Do individuals who own businesses have a right to exercise their own judgment when doing business?

  Fight for maximum freedom and choice rather than authoritarian control and central planning.
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Hating religion is easy

  Being pragmatic and guarding against making sweeping blanket laws and restrictions takes more thought

  Many of you have traded your magical view of "jehovah" for a magical view of government. The government is not your friend, do not feed it. Laws are not your friend, laws should increase rights, not take them away. If you believe the government is some benevolent organization looking out for your actual welfare, I have a watchtower to sell you.