MeanMrMustard

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 3,910 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MeanMrMustard

• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @scotsman:

  Again, I would love for those people to advertise their viewpoints so I know exactly which businesses to avoid.
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Looks very like a short term win for the baker if you read the grounds for the decision: it wasn't about protecting Masterpiece's right to freedom of religious belief but about the fact that Colorado was hostile to their religious views, describing them "despicable". It was this that was impermissible. The ruling does not settle the wider issues referred to in this thread.

  In this case, true. Not to worry, however. The activists went to florists too.

  If the USA were to allow bakers, photographers, MC, musicians, venues to say no to legal gay weddings on religious grounds, are they to post "Heterosexuals Only" in their shops and on their websites? I'd rather know than ask and be refused...

  This could do whatever they want in this regard. They should not be forced to put any sign out. But if that floats their boat...
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Every once in a while we get a thread about shunning, how the shunning practices of JWs have wrecked lives ( and they have ), and how morally reprehensible it is to shun loved ones. Then somewhere along the way, someone will say something like, “There should be a law against this. It should be illegal.”

  Ten thread pages go by, begging people to see that a law against shunning would in fact be a disaster, and would in fact undermine one of the fundamental rights, freedom of association, that actually makes life livable.

  “But it’s not right. It tears families apart. It’s wrong, they shouldn’t do that.”

  Yeah, that’s right. They shouldn’t do that. But they do. To them it’s the right thing, and they choose freely to cut ties.

  “But the Watchtower tells them to do it.”

  Yeah, that’s right. And they choose to listen, and believe, and act on that with their own moral agency.

  In the end, acting against them legally would undermine an actual freedom, an actual right. In the name of “rights”, the argument is made for giving up a fundamental right because.... they are assholes. And we shouldn’t have assholes in the world. It hurts, and of course the government is the best way to take care of that. Except it really isn’t. The entrenched dig in deeper.

  Its the same for racists and sexists... and homophobes (the real kind, not the kind the left sees in every newborn boy).

  And here we are, 10 pages later ( or more ).

  People own their own bodies, their own labor, and the results of it. The only difference between a job and slavery is consent. You agree to sell you labor for a price because it’s your property to begin with. Each person has exclusive rights to their property.

  And, sometimes people will choose to do crappy things with it.

  “Yeah but it’s not right, it hurts people.”

  Yeah, that’s right. But compelled service is slavery. Period.

  It sucks, but the best way to beat the WT is through information and making the argument - convincing people over time. Same with these guys. Best way to deal with them is to go somewhere else.

  And don’t take down fundamental rights ( private property ) just because there are mean people - nothing is worth it.
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Fink:

  How does a business transaction imply loss of private property rights?
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Another hypothetical situation ...Lets say a JWS opened their own cake shop but they refused to make cakes for Birthdays, Christmas, Mother's day, Father's day, same sex marriages, secular holidays or any religious affiliated celebrations.
  Legal or not even though they held a public business license to operate in their community ?

  Perfectly fine. They own the property. I don’t see what a public business license has to do with it. Are you thinking that just because the state forced them to get a license, that now somehow the property becomes public and they lose ownership?
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  If a person doesn’t want to make a cake for a gay couple, even a generic one, and the person is then compelled by law, how do you think that will play out? Perhaps the person really is that asshole we all love to hate. It seems rather plausible that the asshole will make the cake, but make it taste horrible. Nothing unsanitary, just heavy on the turmeric and crab cakes. What now? Are you going to compel the baker to make “good” cakes? Should there be a “Department of Good Cakes” regulating the making of cakes?

  Just let the baker do what he/she wants with his/her property. The business will go under, and the asshole will feel every painful loss of revenue as more and more customers go somewhere else.
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Jehalapeno:

  Narrow in the sense that it didn’t really answer the larger philosophical questions we are talking about now. It was favorable to this specific case.
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  The government is us, dude: we the people.

  Do you think that if you give people a bunch of power, they turn into angels? The Colorado law that started this case is a great example. Heck, Jim Crow is another.

  
  
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Don't agree with this ruling, a registered business open to the general public should not be able to withhold their business dealings to the public based wholly upon a person's sexual identity or religious identity.

  A business open to the public should be able to do whatever it wants - whatever the property owners want. I would love the sexist, racist assholes to advertise themselves so I know where not to go.

  Again, they shouldn’t descriminate. But if they do, it should not be the position of the government to compel labor by law. That is exactly slavery.

  Punish the assholes by going to another store.

  Don’t advocate for setting a precedent that gives the government a massive hammer to beat anyone down it doesn’t like - because the government is made up of the officials running it, and its a good bet at some point you will be on the hurting end of the power you originally thought was just peachy.
• 
  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. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  My vote: maximum private property rights. No compelled service, no matter what. Compelled service is, by definition, slavery.

  Note: this works fine for government workers, or any worker for that matter. You agree to your employers rules when you take the job.