MeanMrMustard

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 3,911 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MeanMrMustard

• 
  20

  Biblical Injunction To 'Spare the Rod' And Spoil the Child' or 10 Reasons Not To Hit Your Child

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltoyjvslwgg.

  http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html.

  in 37 countries 1 around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  The Family Guy proposed an explanation of Hitler's anger toward Jews that seems to make a lot of sense...

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTO6fAJf1GM

  MMM
• 
  176

  JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

  i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

  i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @LisaRose and DJS:

  I’ll go through your questions, LisaRose, a little bit later when I have time. But first I have to address something. It has already been addressed in my previous posts.

  LisaRose wrote:

  Is it because you feel being gay is a choice? If so, what scientific evidence do you have to back that up? I think that this is only under discussion because some people find homosexuality personally repugnant.

  and DJS wrote:

  You are simply trying to cloak your hatred behind faulty rationale, just like all of the other AOWM who aren't happy unless the world looks as they desire it: white, male, entitled with everyone else falling distinctly beneath them in the pecking order.

  I wrote the quote below just one single post back (look on pp 7):

  First of all, I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually don’t care at all. I have a firm belief that government should stay out of the private contracts of individuals. To me that means if a gay couple wishes to enter into a marriage contract, great. It also means that if a group of people wish to enter a polygamous relationship, great! I honestly don’t have a problem with it. Read that again if you get the urge to claim I am full of hate.

  Let me add to that, in case I wasn’t clear enough. I am an atheist and a libertarian. The WT has not caused me to hate gay people. In fact, if a man decided to have sex with another man, and then (out of sheer adventure) add a women, a goat, and a horse to the mix - I don’t care. My only lament would be that perhaps the goat and the horse, if give a choice, would run away. Other than that, I don’t care.

  As with most of the political discussions that I get into, we have to get past a set of accusations stating that I am either parroting Fox news, or have some sort of white supremacist agenda. None of those are the case. I see a lot of social issues making inroads into natural rights. When JWN posters call on governments to somehow making shunning illegal, I end up on the side of the WT, not because I like the WT, but because that would undermine freedom of association. In this instance I am making the case for private property rights, not because I think discrimination is right, but because I feel the erosion of private property has dire consequences and sets a bad precedent. It is the same with proposed "hate speech" laws - as if hate speech is somehow different thatn free speech.

  MMM
• 
  176

  JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

  i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

  i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @LisaRose:

  No business owner has to be in business, that is a choice.

  Any no gay couple has to get their cake, photographs, or invitations from a business that does not wish to provide them. They too have the choice to move on to a shop that does.

  The government is simply saying that if you choose to run a business that serves the public, you must not discriminate on the basis or race, religion or sexual orientation. You may not like that, and yes it is limiting your freedom, but it is not slavery, far from it.

  I disagree. The reason slavery is morally wrong derives from private property rights - the most fundamental property right. One human can’t own another because each human has, from birth, the natural right of ownership of his or her body and the fruits of the labor resulting from that ownership. When you force someone to work in an endeavor that is not voluntary, it is the very definition of slavery.

  It is not about me ‘not liking it’ or just ‘limiting my freedom’. It is not even about hate. It is about eroding a fundamental natural right of human beings. This shouldn’t be sacrificed to try to “fix” the jerks of the world through law.

  A business owner could choose a different business, could choose not to be in business or choose to comply with the law, even if it is distasteful to them.

  The sword has two edges: the gay couple could just go to another business. In fact, in the NM photographer example, they did find a new photographer. Again, I agree that those business owners that deny their services on the basis of color or sexual orientation are jerks. But we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. We shouldn’t start a precedent (law loves to work off of precedent) that actually attacks fundamental rights.

  You seem very knowledgeable about the law, so I am surprised that you think this is just the same as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. Antonio chose not to work for someone, but it was not because of her race, religion or sexual orientation, so it does not violate the anti discrimination laws. You could say no one was criticizing him for it, but I doubt that is true, you yourself are criticizing him. If I were him I would have taken the job and used my time to find out why she believed that way and given her my viewpoint. So, he may be wrong, but it is not discrimination, at least when it come to the law. False equivalency.

  This isn’t about the law. It is a philosophical issue. On what basis, for what reason, does owning a business suddenly mean that the owners are to relinquish private property rights, not only to their business but also to their very labor? If you are saying that just the sheer action of providing the community with a service or good constitutes a relinquishing of these rights, then you are just a hop-skip-jump away from public ownership of the means of production.

  The example is not false equivalency. Both are discrimination on ideological grounds.

  The anti-gay photographer is saying: I don’t want to serve you because I believe X.

  The gay hair dresser is saying: I don’t want to serve you because you believe X.

  ….. where X is a religious belief that being gay is wrong.

  The hair dresser and the anti-gay photographer are both exercising their right to private property. Nothing wrong with either of them. I was not criticizing Antonio, I was agree with him.

  The government has discrimination laws in place for a reason, and it only applies to those particular protected classes. You may not like it, you may feel people should be able to do what they want, but I personally believe they are good laws, put in place for a reason. I don't want to go back to a world where gay people couldn't live openly and where black people could not eat in certain restaurants. I believe having these laws has helped society to move in a more positive direction. If you disagree, you should work towards getting the law changed.

  What is that reason? To change people morally? If people are to be punished for being jerks, the market will punish them. They will naturally have to pay for their discrimination, as there will be many willing businesses ready to compete. This if far more preferable to stripping away private property.

  MMM
• 
  112

  Supreme Court ruling- refusing to photo gay wedding is discrimination

  by SadElder in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  according to bloomberg news:.

  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-07/wedding-photographer-rebuffed-by-top-court-on-same-sex-ceremony.

  "the u.s. supreme court turned away an appeal from a new mexico wedding photographer found to have violated a state anti-discrimination law when she refused to take pictures of a commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple.. the photographer, elaine huguenin, argued unsuccessfully that she was being unconstitutionally forced to convey a message conflicting with her religious beliefs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  DJS,

  Alright bitcches, listen up. Professor DJS is going to give you an overview of how economics and ethics work together in modern day capitalistic countries. And for those of you who wonder, yes, I have studied both subjects at the Master’s level and taught, for several years, both subjects at the college level.

  Ok. Nothing like an appeal to authority to give everyone the proper perspective.

  Organizations and businesses are egoist, which means their decisions are typically based on self interest and that this is just and proper. Profit is not a dirty word, for example. Capitalism was built on this, and it works well – to a point.

  “Egoist” is an odd way of describing the profit motive. Businesses are, and should be, concerned about profit, as you point out. In doing so, in order to gain profit, businesses have to satisfy the wants and needs of others. They indeed are concerned about their own self-interest, but they can satisfy that self-interest only by serving others. Businesses don’t isolate and focus solely on themselves. They must focus on the customer in order to focus on themselves. That is, unless they get some special privilege from the government, which is the real problem most of the time.

  The U.S. government rests on the foundation of the Constitution (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and general welfare for all), and operates typically in a utilitarian manner, (for the common good), which means that actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals, or all of society, and would seek a balance of justice, freedom and fairness. The Constitution (which was a revolutionary document crafted by visionaries) is predicated on these concepts.

  You reference the Constitution and you make specific reference to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (in Declaration of Independence), and then jump right to the General Welfare clause (in the Constitution) for justification for what is about to come next. On this point, I am worried. The General Welfare clause does not mean that anything goes as long as there is sufficient political support. If it meant this, why write the rest of the Constitution, which limits the power of government to specific enumerated powers?

  Balancing these two views is the skill-set which makes great countries. Both are correct. One isn’t ‘right’ and one isn’t ‘wrong.’

  Hang on there. Applying the General Welfare clause to mean “anything goes” is most definitely incorrect.

  Governments in capitalistic countries seek to create a thriving business environment for a strong economy while balancing the need for regulation (environment, social, etc.), justice and fairness for all. But governments, according to Adam Smith’s perfect model, shouldn’t directly support or subsidize businesses, unless those businesses impact the country’s ability to feed and protect itself. Otherwise, failing businesses should be allowed to fail. Textiles? Let them go to Mexico and replace textiles with semi-conductors. Banks? Let them fail and be absorbed by other banks. Chrysler? Let it go the way of the wind and see what type of Phoenix, more beautiful and efficient, is re-born in its place. The recent bailout of the banks deemed to be TBTF (too big to fail) was more political response than reality. Other banks would have absorbed the failed ones, and the economy would have rebounded stronger for it. But many weren’t able to accept the short-term political and economic impact.

  I agree, the bailouts were politically motivated. And the problems were originally caused by political policy as well.

  That’s the way Adam Smith envisioned a perfect economic model. He was right. But we humans – and our congressmen/women - don’t want the textile industry to go away if we depend on it for food or political power. We don’t want Chrysler to fail if we work for Chrysler or within the supply chain. And so on. The egoist, some of which rail against government controls, etc., seeks assistance from the universalist when they need it (bail me out, subsidize me, build a wall around me, keep those mean Chinese away, increase tariffs, etc.). As expected. The egoist will always think of themselves first and last.

  The “egoist” should be told “no” from the government. And in fact, the government shouldn’t have the power to even say “yes” … period. The fault is not in the profit motive, the fault is that special interests are able to get an audience with the government.

  This is one reason why it is ultimately absurd to say that special interests (the businesses seeking unfair advantage), gaining government audience (creating a supposed “balance”), has anything to do with the General Welfare. Even if the Constitution could be read that way, businesses that are able to use the rule of law to gain a competitive advantage do the exact opposite - they sacrifice general welfare for special interests. If you are concerned about general welfare, then the first thing you should be want to do is remove the government from the market.

  The egoist (businesses) also seeks assistance from the universalist (government) by lobbying for and demanding better roads, schools, airports, utilities, etc. to help its business thrive. So it comes off as more than a bit hypocritical for a business, a completely egoist enterprise, to think it can serve only who it wishes, especially when it has asked and gotten so much from the government – which has a competing interest of the common good for all – that has helped make their business thrive. And how many of you haters have or have had government backed school and/or home loans, lived in subsidized housing, were on food stamps, welfare, WIC, worker's comp, etc., etc.. To paint with such a broad brush about the mean ole violent government, especially when one has benefited from it so much, is hypocritical.

  Some businesses do lobby government, but it is usually the ones that can’t compete in a free market and need the rule of law to provide some competitive advantage. Again, the government should say “Sorry, this is beyond our scope of power”. But not all businesses seek government. Most want government to get out of the way because it is government that is giving other businesses an unfair advantage.

  On a side note: it is a bit absurd to think that private business can, without central planning, produce cities of tall skyscrapers, and yet, only the state could actually produce a flat slab of asphalt for cars to drive on.

  But putting all that aside for a moment, and assuming that the government is the only entity that could produce roads, even though I do not agree, how does that buy away the private property rights of the business owner? Are you saying that because society as a whole (and this is debatable too) has decided to collectively impose a tax to produce roads, a tax that the business owner pays too, it means that a business owner actually doesn’t own the business? After all, only a business with private property rights (the right to do what they choose with their property) would be able to refuse to provide service to gay couple, a black person, a white person, a yellow person, polygamous groups, or anything else, for whatever reason. I would ask, by what principle do you claim private property rights can be undermined, and what are its limits? If you are to say that a business owner must serve a person he/she doesn’t want to serve because of being gay or black, what logically prevents you from forcing the business owner into servitude for any number of other reasons?

  I have seen several other responses on this thread indicating that since the business services the public, the public aught to have some say in the matter. Since all businesses seek voluntary exchange with customers (the public), I guess that would mean that all businesses are not privately owned. With no clear cut dividing between what the “public” (i.e. government) can do and can’t do, there is no real private ownership.

  Those businesses which discriminate against others, even or especially based on their own peronal relgious beliefs, are on very shaky ground when it comes to the U.S. egoist/universalist capitalistic environment and the U.S. Constitution. To try to hide behind religion is a sham, and the courts have consistently upheld the rights of all citizens when they faced such discrimination. Courts in state after state are ruling that discriminating against gays is unconstitutional and numerous anti-gay marriage laws have been overturned (many of these decisions are currently stayed based on appeal).

  This is true. Many courts are on your side of the argument. I think they are wrong… Not in regards to the morality of discrimination, mind you. I completely agree with the sentiment. I think they are wrong on Constitutional grounds, on the grounds of eroding private property rights. If you are a business owner and you refuse service to a gay couple or to a black man or a yellow man, I feel you are a jerk. But even the greatest jerk in the world should not be made to enter involuntary servitude. Think about it, you are forcing, by law, someone to serve people he/she doesn’t want to serve. How is this any different than the slavery you wish to reject?

  This “right” you are asserting is a “positive right”, which isn’t a right at all, it is an entitlement. Ultimately it will conflict with actual true “negative rights”. If you are unsure of the difference, this man explains it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44

  Follow it through logically: The gay couple in New Mexico, for example, were not just demanding a positive right to service. They were demanding a positive right to QUALITY service, equal service. It is logical that if we are going to force someone to service an individual or group he/she doesn’t want to serve, most likely, the performance will be much poorer than if the exchange were voluntary. So based on the current direction of all the courts, would the gay couple have yet another claim against the photographer? Would they be able to now claim that discrimination was still in play here because they received poor quality pictures? But it gets worse than that even. What would happen if the disgruntled photographer were to wear a T-shirt to wedding that states, “I don’t agree with gay weddings”? The wise court would have to step in again, because otherwise, surely there would be discrimination. Public accommodation must be satisfied. But what have we limited now?

  Deal with it haters.

  Nothing like poising the well to put everything in perspective.

  Let’s try this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/antonio-darden/

  Antonio Darden was a hair dresser for Governor Susana Martinez, also New Mexico. A few years back, he decided on ideological grounds to refuse service to the Governor. He was gay, and the Governor was opposed to same sex marriage. As you can see in the link, Antonio was praised. Nobody ever mentioned, “Hey, you have a business that serves the public, and your beliefs don’t matter, you still have to serve the Governor.” Both the photographer in NM and the hair dresser in NM exercised their private property rights.

  Don’t get me wrong, the hair dresser was well within his rights to do that. But don’t you see the legal double standard? One person’s private property is undermined, the other is upheld. Based on what? On whether or not the person’s social views were in sync with the popular view. As mrhhome said “... it is a really, really bad precedent…”

  MMM
• 
  176

  JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

  i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

  i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  DJS,

  I started writing this response and the thread grew quickly. I notice that you posted your response from another thread, one that I had been involved with as well. However, I was unable then to respond due to time constraints. I will respond now, and in the other thread.

  You assume opponents of your view are haters. I submit that this is just a way for you to label those opposing your view without actually addressing the substance and logic. I also noticed that the stand-by slander of “parroting Fox News” was brought out a couple of times. Another way of dodging. I can’t speak for mrhhome, but I don’t watch Fox, and I’m pretty sure they don’t say what I’m about to write.

  First of all, I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually don’t care at all. I have a firm belief that government should stay out of the private contracts of individuals. To me that means if a gay couple wishes to enter into a marriage contract, great. It also means that if a group of people wish to enter a polygamous relationship, great! I honestly don’t have a problem with it. Read that again if you get the urge to claim I am full of hate.

  But there are other reasons why these court decisions are a bad idea - reasons that have little to do with sexual orientation, or race.

  Alright bitcches, listen up. Professor DJS is going to give you an overview of how economics and ethics work together in modern day capitalistic countries. And for those of you who wonder, yes, I have studied both subjects at the Master’s level and taught, for several years, both subjects at the college level.

  Ok. Nothing like an appeal to authority to give everyone the proper perspective.

  Organizations and businesses are egoist, which means their decisions are typically based on self interest and that this is just and proper. Profit is not a dirty word, for example. Capitalism was built on this, and it works well – to a point.

  “Egoist” is an odd way of describing the profit motive. Businesses are, and should be, concerned about profit, as you point out. In doing so, in order to gain profit, businesses have to satisfy the wants and needs of others. They indeed are concerned about their own self-interest, but they can satisfy that self-interest only by serving others. Businesses don’t isolate and focus solely on themselves. They must focus on the customer in order to focus on themselves. That is, unless they get some special privilege from the government, which is the real problem most of the time.

  The U.S. government rests on the foundation of the Constitution (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and general welfare for all), and operates typically in a utilitarian manner, (for the common good), which means that actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals, or all of society, and would seek a balance of justice, freedom and fairness. The Constitution (which was a revolutionary document crafted by visionaries) is predicated on these concepts.

  You reference the Constitution and you make specific reference to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (in Declaration of Independence), and then jump right to the General Welfare clause (in the Constitution) for justification for what is about to come next. On this point, I am worried. The General Welfare clause does not mean that anything goes as long as there is sufficient political support. If it meant this, why write the rest of the Constitution, which limits the power of government to specific enumerated powers?

  Balancing these two views is the skill-set which makes great countries. Both are correct. One isn’t ‘right’ and one isn’t ‘wrong.’

  Hang on there. Applying the General Welfare clause to mean “anything goes” is most definitely incorrect.

  Governments in capitalistic countries seek to create a thriving business environment for a strong economy while balancing the need for regulation (environment, social, etc.), justice and fairness for all. But governments, according to Adam Smith’s perfect model, shouldn’t directly support or subsidize businesses, unless those businesses impact the country’s ability to feed and protect itself. Otherwise, failing businesses should be allowed to fail. Textiles? Let them go to Mexico and replace textiles with semi-conductors. Banks? Let them fail and be absorbed by other banks. Chrysler? Let it go the way of the wind and see what type of Phoenix, more beautiful and efficient, is re-born in its place. The recent bailout of the banks deemed to be TBTF (too big to fail) was more political response than reality. Other banks would have absorbed the failed ones, and the economy would have rebounded stronger for it. But many weren’t able to accept the short-term political and economic impact.

  I agree, the bailouts were politically motivated. And the problems were originally caused by political policy as well.

  That’s the way Adam Smith envisioned a perfect economic model. He was right. But we humans – and our congressmen/women - don’t want the textile industry to go away if we depend on it for food or political power. We don’t want Chrysler to fail if we work for Chrysler or within the supply chain. And so on. The egoist, some of which rail against government controls, etc., seeks assistance from the universalist when they need it (bail me out, subsidize me, build a wall around me, keep those mean Chinese away, increase tariffs, etc.). As expected. The egoist will always think of themselves first and last.

  The “egoist” should be told “no” from the government. And in fact, the government shouldn’t have the power to even say “yes” … period. The fault is not in the profit motive, the fault is that special interests are able to get an audience with the government.

  This is one reason why it is ultimately absurd to say that special interests (the businesses seeking unfair advantage), gaining government audience (creating a supposed “balance”), has anything to do with the General Welfare. Even if the Constitution could be read that way, businesses that are able to use the rule of law to gain a competitive advantage do the exact opposite - they sacrifice general welfare for special interests. If you are concerned about general welfare, then the first thing you should be want to do is remove the government from the market.

  The egoist (businesses) also seeks assistance from the universalist (government) by lobbying for and demanding better roads, schools, airports, utilities, etc. to help its business thrive. So it comes off as more than a bit hypocritical for a business, a completely egoist enterprise, to think it can serve only who it wishes, especially when it has asked and gotten so much from the government – which has a competing interest of the common good for all – that has helped make their business thrive. And how many of you haters have or have had government backed school and/or home loans, lived in subsidized housing, were on food stamps, welfare, WIC, worker's comp, etc., etc.. To paint with such a broad brush about the mean ole violent government, especially when one has benefited from it so much, is hypocritical.

  Some businesses do lobby government, but it is usually the ones that can’t compete in a free market and need the rule of law to provide some competitive advantage. Again, the government should say “Sorry, this is beyond our scope of power”. But not all businesses seek government. Most want government to get out of the way because it is government that is giving other businesses an unfair advantage.

  On a side note: it is a bit absurd to think that private business can, without central planning, produce cities of tall skyscrapers, and yet, only the state could actually produce a flat slab of asphalt for cars to drive on.

  But putting all that aside for a moment, and assuming that the government is the only entity that could produce roads, even though I do not agree, how does that buy away the private property rights of the business owner? Are you saying that because society as a whole (and this is debatable too) has decided to collectively impose a tax to produce roads, a tax that the business owner pays too, it means that a business owner actually doesn’t own the business? After all, only a business with private property rights (the right to do what they choose with their property) would be able to refuse to provide service to gay couple, a black person, a white person, a yellow person, polygamous groups, or anything else, for whatever reason. I would ask, by what principle do you claim private property rights can be undermined, and what are its limits? If you are to say that a business owner must serve a person he/she doesn’t want to serve because of being gay or black, what logically prevents you from forcing the business owner into servitude for any number of other reasons?

  I have seen several other responses on this thread indicating that since the business services the public, the public aught to have some say in the matter. Since all businesses seek voluntary exchange with customers (the public), I guess that would mean that all businesses are not privately owned. With no clear cut dividing between what the “public” (i.e. government) can do and can’t do, there is no real private ownership.

  Those businesses which discriminate against others, even or especially based on their own peronal relgious beliefs, are on very shaky ground when it comes to the U.S. egoist/universalist capitalistic environment and the U.S. Constitution. To try to hide behind religion is a sham, and the courts have consistently upheld the rights of all citizens when they faced such discrimination. Courts in state after state are ruling that discriminating against gays is unconstitutional and numerous anti-gay marriage laws have been overturned (many of these decisions are currently stayed based on appeal).

  This is true. Many courts are on your side of the argument. I think they are wrong… Not in regards to the morality of discrimination, mind you. I completely agree with the sentiment. I think they are wrong on Constitutional grounds, on the grounds of eroding private property rights. If you are a business owner and you refuse service to a gay couple or to a black man or a yellow man, I feel you are a jerk. But even the greatest jerk in the world should not be made to enter involuntary servitude. Think about it, you are forcing, by law, someone to serve people he/she doesn’t want to serve. How is this any different than the slavery you wish to reject?

  This “right” you are asserting is a “positive right”, which isn’t a right at all, it is an entitlement. Ultimately it will conflict with actual true “negative rights”. If you are unsure of the difference, this man explains it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44

  Follow it through logically: The gay couple in New Mexico, for example, were not just demanding a positive right to service. They were demanding a positive right to QUALITY service, equal service. It is logical that if we are going to force someone to service an individual or group he/she doesn’t want to serve, most likely, the performance will be much poorer than if the exchange were voluntary. So based on the current direction of all the courts, would the gay couple have yet another claim against the photographer? Would they be able to now claim that discrimination was still in play here because they received poor quality pictures? But it gets worse than that even. What would happen if the disgruntled photographer were to wear a T-shirt to wedding that states, “I don’t agree with gay weddings”? The wise court would have to step in again, because otherwise, surely there would be discrimination. Public accommodation must be satisfied. But what have we limited now?

  Deal with it haters.

  Nothing like poising the well to put everything in perspective.

  Let’s try this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/antonio-darden/

  Antonio Darden was a hair dresser for Governor Susana Martinez, also New Mexico. A few years back, he decided on ideological grounds to refuse service to the Governor. He was gay, and the Governor was opposed to same sex marriage. As you can see in the link, Antonio was praised. Nobody ever mentioned, “Hey, you have a business that serves the public, and your beliefs don’t matter, you still have to serve the Governor.” Both the photographer in NM and the hair dresser in NM exercised their private property rights.

  Don’t get me wrong, the hair dresser was well within his rights to do that. But don’t you see the legal double standard? One person’s private property is undermined, the other is upheld. Based on what? On whether or not the person’s social views were in sync with the popular view. As mrhhome said “... it is a really, really bad precedent…”

  MMM
• 
  176

  JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

  i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

  i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Scully:

  The thing with neo-nazis and KKK members is that they *do* discriminate and their events promote racial segregation, hate speech, etc. Refusing to serve them, when their viewpoints are in opposition to the civil liberties of the general public, would probably be legally permissible.

  Scully, what do you mean by this? If a group is determined to hold views not widely accepted, are you saying it is OK to practice descrimination against those individuals - that is it would be "legally permissible"? But as long as you agree with the current societal consensus, then by all means, the law should protect you?

  I am curious: what is "hate speech"? Should it be protected as free speech?

  If a group wants to promote their hatred, they can find someone who shares that viewpoint to do the stationery, catering, etc. I don't see a gay couple who want to spend the rest of their lives together in a committed relationship as a violation of anyone else's civil liberties. They aren't telling the JW stationery lady that she can't go Door-to-Door™ or attend Meetings™ at the Kingdom Hall™ or gather with other JWs at a Circuit Assembly™ or District Convention™. They just want to have a celebration of their relationship with their friends and loved ones - it is none of this JW lady's business to interfere with that.

  I don't see how the gay couple is violating anyone's civil liberties either. The UK has the law, and many governments seem to be confusing negative rights with postive rights all over place. Is the state violating the business owner's rights? My question would be: Does the owner actually own the business? Is the business privately owned or not? (again, I know that the UK has the law and so for this case it is a done deal, so-to-speak. The owner will most likely get some legal action taken against her. But I am wondering wether or not it should be. I am wondering whether or not it is a good thing the law is involved in this way).

  MMM
• 
  15

  Human Rights -ignored often, not far reaching enough, more than often.

  by Phizzy in

  1. social
  2. current

  human rights are clearly laid out in a number of places, and are upheld by legislation in many nations, and yet they are ignored, or when they are invoked, do not go far enough.. this is a sad state of affairs in the 21st century.. human rights are simply trodden in to the ground where we have war, where we have totalitarian regimes, and where we have ignorant clerics who rule.. even in enlightened countries that broadly accept the principles of human rights, they often are not given the priority they should receive.. take freedom of religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion.

  the fact that we in the u.k, canada the u.s.a, europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the wt/jw religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.. the same with the right to family life, the jw/wt cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic human right.. it is time their power, and the power of religion in general, was reigned in, and they be made to respect human rights fully..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  From the Declaration of Human Rights posted by jgnat:

  Article 18.

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

  This seems to affrim exactly what Phizzy would like to ban on the grounds of human rights.

  Phizzy mentioned this:

  Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

  Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

  link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

  How does this apply to the WT?

  MMM
• 
  15

  Human Rights -ignored often, not far reaching enough, more than often.

  by Phizzy in

  1. social
  2. current

  human rights are clearly laid out in a number of places, and are upheld by legislation in many nations, and yet they are ignored, or when they are invoked, do not go far enough.. this is a sad state of affairs in the 21st century.. human rights are simply trodden in to the ground where we have war, where we have totalitarian regimes, and where we have ignorant clerics who rule.. even in enlightened countries that broadly accept the principles of human rights, they often are not given the priority they should receive.. take freedom of religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion.

  the fact that we in the u.k, canada the u.s.a, europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the wt/jw religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.. the same with the right to family life, the jw/wt cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic human right.. it is time their power, and the power of religion in general, was reigned in, and they be made to respect human rights fully..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Phizzy:

  " The shunning does in fact constitute a violation of H.R if it involves denying you access to normal family life."

  Define what a "normal family life" is. Who gets to make the choice about what is "normal"? Are you saying there should be a legal authority that would come into a family situation and force other family members to associate with the shunned member?

  MMM
• 
  15

  Human Rights -ignored often, not far reaching enough, more than often.

  by Phizzy in

  1. social
  2. current

  human rights are clearly laid out in a number of places, and are upheld by legislation in many nations, and yet they are ignored, or when they are invoked, do not go far enough.. this is a sad state of affairs in the 21st century.. human rights are simply trodden in to the ground where we have war, where we have totalitarian regimes, and where we have ignorant clerics who rule.. even in enlightened countries that broadly accept the principles of human rights, they often are not given the priority they should receive.. take freedom of religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion.

  the fact that we in the u.k, canada the u.s.a, europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the wt/jw religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.. the same with the right to family life, the jw/wt cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic human right.. it is time their power, and the power of religion in general, was reigned in, and they be made to respect human rights fully..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Phizzy:

  Take Freedom of Religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion. The fact that we in the U.K, Canada the U.S.A, Europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the WT/JW religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.

  You can disassociate yourself from the JW religion. You have that freedom in the USA. How are you not free?

  The same with the Right to Family Life, the JW/WT cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic Human Right.

  You must start with a firm definition of what a "right" should be. What is your defintion if a "right"? For example, what is the "Right to Family Life"? Are you saying that if someone were to want a family, he/she should be provided one?

  MMM
• 
  32

  Is The Governing Body Open To Lawsuits In Some Countries Over Enforced Shunning Of Ex Members?

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  have they crossed some sort of legal line when they enforce shunning of ex members?

  can they get sued for harassment?

  what are the legal boundaries they have crossed by enforce shunning of ex member by threatening disfellowshipping of any member not shunning certain individuals?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  No disfellowshipping per say is not a hate crime.

  What kind of question is that any way and how is it related to the subject?

  I was mainly responding to your last post. I wanted to see where you actually came down on this, since you said " Their days of getting away with this sort of xenophobic hate crime..." when referring to the WTS use of a possible disfellowshipment. I just wanted to see what you thought specifically, and I didn't quite know, so I thought I would just ask. If you had said it is a hate crime, then I would probably follow up asking why...

  I am all for social awareness. IMHO, that will be the downfall of the WTS, in the end. That is, people learning the truth and walking away and/or never joining in the first place.

  MMM