California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 02:34 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 02:15 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nobody is forcing them to operate their own business. But if they choose to operate a small business, that comes with certain restrictions. By doing so, they are voluntarily giving up their freedom to discriminate in order to abide by anti-discrimination laws; such is the cost of owning and operating a licensed small business in our country.


They don't like it? They needn't be forced to like it. Their approval isn't necessary, only their compliance is. They always have the option to quit, cash out, and go be a bigot someplace else. Drinking Beverage
Let me explain it a different way using different groups.

Atheist baker owns a bakery down on 1st St. This atheist baker doesn't agree with circumcision. He believes its no longer medically necessary, and old fashioned.

A Jewish family enters the bakery. Atheist baker regularly sells this family cakes for birthdays, gives the children cookies and cupcakes. They get along fine.

But on this occasion, the Jewish family wants to buy a cake for the brit milah ceremony for their newborn baby. During this ceremony, the baby will undergo circumcision. The atheist baker declines to sell the Jewish family the cake due to his deeply held beliefs that circumcision is wrong.

In this scenario, is the baker discriminating against the Jewish religion, or against the practice of circumcision?

It's the same for the gay wedding situation. The bakery owners had other gay customers that they sold products to. It's not like they turned away all gay customers every time they walked into the store. They were turning away the gay wedding itself.

That atheist baker is in the wrong, what's so hard to grasp about this? Change the names of the groups and rearrange them all you want, the core principle remains the same. If you choose top operate a business, then you choose to do so in compliance with the law; and the current law dictates that you must treat everyone equally.

The bigoted asshole bakers would be perfectly fine in declining to cater a gay wedding, so long as they refuse to cater all weddings; that way they treated everyone equally. This atheist baker has no reason, insofar as the law is concerned, to refuse baking a cake for them; the atheist's 'deeply held belief' against circumcision doesn't have any legal standing. Suck it up, make the cake, or close down your business if you're unable to do so.

What is so fucking hard about this to understand?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 02:42 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 02:34 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Let me explain it a different way using different groups.

Atheist baker owns a bakery down on 1st St. This atheist baker doesn't agree with circumcision. He believes its no longer medically necessary, and old fashioned.

A Jewish family enters the bakery. Atheist baker regularly sells this family cakes for birthdays, gives the children cookies and cupcakes. They get along fine.

But on this occasion, the Jewish family wants to buy a cake for the brit milah ceremony for their newborn baby. During this ceremony, the baby will undergo circumcision. The atheist baker declines to sell the Jewish family the cake due to his deeply held beliefs that circumcision is wrong.

In this scenario, is the baker discriminating against the Jewish religion, or against the practice of circumcision?

It's the same for the gay wedding situation. The bakery owners had other gay customers that they sold products to. It's not like they turned away all gay customers every time they walked into the store. They were turning away the gay wedding itself.

That atheist baker is in the wrong, what's so hard to grasp about this? Change the names of the group around all you want, the core principle remains the same. If you choose top operate a business, then you choose to do so in compliance with the law; and the current law dictates that you must treat everyone equally.

The bigoted asshole bakers would be perfectly fine in declining to cater a gay wedding, so long as they refuse to cater all weddings; that way they treated everyone equally. This atheist baker has no reason, insofar as the law is concerned, to refuse baking a cake for them; the atheist's 'deeply held belief' against circumcision doesn't have and legal standing. Such it up, make the cake, or close down your business if you're unable to do so.

What is so fucking hard about this to understand?

"We refuse to serve a gay wedding" is different than "we refuse to serve gay people."

Selling a cupcake to a gay person is not a personal thing. Selling a cake for their gay wedding is now personal. It adds "I now endorse this by adding my work of art to their marriage."

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2015 02:56 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 02:45 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 02:42 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That atheist baker is in the wrong, what's so hard to grasp about this? Change the names of the group around all you want, the core principle remains the same. If you choose top operate a business, then you choose to do so in compliance with the law; and the current law dictates that you must treat everyone equally.

The bigoted asshole bakers would be perfectly fine in declining to cater a gay wedding, so long as they refuse to cater all weddings; that way they treated everyone equally. This atheist baker has no reason, insofar as the law is concerned, to refuse baking a cake for them; the atheist's 'deeply held belief' against circumcision doesn't have and legal standing. Such it up, make the cake, or close down your business if you're unable to do so.

What is so fucking hard about this to understand?

"We refuse to serve a gay wedding" is different than "we refuse to serve gay people."

Selling a cupcake to a gay person is not a personal thing. Selling a cake for their gay wedding is now personal. It adds "I now endorse this by adding my work of art to their marriage."

For fuck's sake.... Facepalm

The point is equality. Treating everyone equally, and providing your services to everyone equally.

Do you fucking get that? Because I get the distinct feeling you do not. So let me repeat it.

The point is equality.

The point is equality.

Equal treatment. End of story, full stop.

If you are not comfortable catering a gay wedding, that's fine; don't cater any weddings. Do you fucking get it? So long as you treat everyone EQUALLY, that's the whole fucking point. You can refuse to cater all weddings, or you can choose to cater weddings; but if you do decide to offer the service of catering a wedding, you must offer that service equally and without discrimination. Full fucking stop, end of story.


(09-10-2015 02:45 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Selling a cupcake to a gay person is not a personal thing. Selling a cake for their gay wedding is now personal. It adds "I now endorse this by adding my work of art to their marriage."


Bull fucking shit. It's not endorsement, they were fucking hired to do it. Nobody gives a fuck what their opinion is, only whether or not they can perform the job they're hired to do. Their approval is not necessary, but their compliance is.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
09-10-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 01:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If Rite Aid wants to fire a pharmacist because they won't dispense emergency contraceptives Rite Aid should be free to do that. If the owners of Rite Aid decide they don't want to dispense emergency contraceptives because they morally object to them, they should be free to not carry them. Just as Walmart should be free to not carry AK47s if they don't want too.

You keep raising a red herring. Plan B is OTC. Rite Aid and Walmart have both decided to stock it. There is no requirement they stock it. There is no fucking pharmacist involvement. If the pharmacist has a moral objection to it he can quit. If a bakery has a moral objection to the laws applying to businesses they can close up shop and start an online business, which is exactly what Meliisa's Cakes did.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-10-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 02:07 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  What religious basis could one have for not serving blacks?

You must be a youngster. Religious objections were used to both justify slavery and to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
09-10-2015, 03:48 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 03:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 02:07 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  What religious basis could one have for not serving blacks?

You must be a youngster. Religious objections were used to both justify slavery and to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

To my credit, I did put "in the modern age."

I meant now. I haven't seen anyone but ardent racist KKK fuckheads waiving their bible around. And I'm no bible scholar, but I haven't seen any pastors these days preaching racism based on the bible. I'm sure some might exist, but I'd bet its far less than it was even 60 years ago.

But one thing most of these Christians agree on is that their religion is very clear about homosexuality. Very clear. I'm an atheist but I believe in the constitution first. I believe a religious exemption is needed for homosexuality, so they can freely exercise their religion without government intrusion.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 04:11 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2015 04:21 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 03:48 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  But one thing most of these Christians agree on is that their religion is very clear about homosexuality. Very clear.

It's not that clear. They typically go back to their cafeteria menu of Leviticus where they pick and choose which rules to observe and which rules to ignore. What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality? Not a goddam motherfucking thing.

(09-10-2015 03:48 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I'm an atheist but I believe in the constitution first. I believe a religious exemption is needed for homosexuality, so they can freely exercise their religion without government intrusion.

What strict Constitutionalists fail to appreciate is that the beauty of the Constitution is precisely that it was designed with the intention it be amended and adapt to societal changes. There's nothing sacrosanct about the Constitution. Nothing. The Founding Fathers went out of their way to make this point. What I see in many so-called "Constitutionalists" is that they really really love the 2nd Amendment and they really really hate the 14th. They're not "Constitutionalists", they are "Cafeteria Constitutionalists".

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
09-10-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 09:47 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 09:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, you've completely missed the point you ignorant fuck. You failing to understand my analogy sound like a you problem, especially if Alla manged to keep up.

The point was in illustrating how conservative fucknuts like to insert and remove their culpability at whim. So whenever a bigoted baker refuses to provide their services to a gay couple, the baker inserts themselves into the gay couple's choices and then stomps their feet and refuses service because they're now somehow culpable for the gay couple's choices. Likewise a gun shop owner who sells a high capacity magazine, armor piercing ammo, and a semi-auto rifle to somebody will do everything he can to distance himself from that person and their choices if they then later go on to shoot up an elementary school. There is no consistency here, it's blatant fucking hypocrisy.

So pick one side jackass. Either the baker, pharmacists, and gun shop owners are not culpable for their customer's choices, or they all are. You cannot have it both ways you cherry picking fuktard.

OK, even I'm not following this line of thinking now. If the gun store owner knew the plan of the shooter, he wouldn't sell the shit to him. Why? Because he wouldn't be in support of the end result. Same with the baker. The baker doesn't support the end result, the gay marriage.

A christian baker who sold a cake to a gay couple but didn't know it, could later explain to "god" that they had no idea. If they did know but still did it, they would be violating their religious beliefs, just as a gun store owner would be violating rules if they knowingly sold to someone planning to kill.

By no means am I suggesting gay marriage is the equivalent of mass murder. Just using your scenarios.

The cake does nothing to facilitate the marriage. Facepalm

In fact, the cake doesn't make an appearance until well after the marriage occurs, usually at a different venue.

The cake is for a party. The baker and his/her supporters are just looking to be butthurt; they are irrational.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
09-10-2015, 04:21 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 11:58 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 11:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And as pointed out earlier, that doesn't fucking matter. If the person is culpable, then they should care. If they're not culpable, then they should not care. So if we're going to allow pharmacists to deny medication to customers because of what the customer might use them for, then the same should apply for the gun owner. But unless you plan on instituting a probing questionnaire on their motives that cannot be falsified under threat of perjury, then good luck enforcing it; and even here Blowjob's supposed Libertarianism should be outraged at that level of intrusiveness into your personal business to engage with the market.




Secular laws should never give a fuck what your imaginary friends do or do not approve of. Dodgy


Also the gun shop owner would only be legally culpable as an accessory if he failed to inform the authorities after being made aware of the intentions of the customer, because murder is illegal. Gay marriage in the state of Oregon is not illegal, and you are not held culpable as an accessory if you know of one happening and fail to alert anyone to that fact. Drinking Beverage


Does a cop assigned to security during a lawful KKK rally in any way at all voice his opinion, agreement, or consent, by doing his job and enforcing security during the protest? No.

Does that same cop assigned to security during a pro-LGBT rally likewise express his opinion, agreement, or consent by providing security during their rally? No.

Do we want, need, or even expect the opinions of the people who we hire or interact with in the service industry, to have any bearing whatsoever on the services provided? No. Why in the fucking hell should bakers get a pass? What makes them the exception?

A baker's opinion on their marriage is not warranted, needed, or asked for. All that is expected is that they provide the same level of services to all of their customers, to not discriminate against any of them. Don't want to cater a gay wedding? Don't cater any weddings. Don't want to sell cakes to gay couples? Don't sell cakes. Refuse to interact with gay people under any circumstances? Don't operate your own small business.




Mass murders are at least a quantifiable part of reality, the various opinions of different gods filtered through incalculably different people are not.

You make great points, and in a perfect world, we'd all believe the same way, act the same way, and react the same way.

But we don't. Some people believe in the imaginary friend in the sky. They just do. They have a religious text that lays down the rules that they follow. A man shouldn't lay with another man and whatnot. To us, its no big deal. To them, its vile. To support it, is vile.

These laws are FORCING them to go against their religious beliefs. FORCE, by threat of fine, loss of business license, perhaps jail if they dont pay. Just as the constitution prevents the government from establishing a religion, it also prevents the government from prohibiting free exercise of religion. One cannot freely exercise their religion if the government is controlling which aspects of that religion one can adhere to. It's not like they're asking for the right to commit ritual sacrifice. They're saying hey, we don't believe in homosexuality. We don't want to support that in any way.

I see both sides but I think the side of liberty wins for me. A religious exception is reasonable to me, in this case. It may not work in every example, like your police officer scenario. A police officer, like Kim Davis, is a public employee, representing the government, and must remain neutral.

They are irrationally deciding that baking a cake is supporting a marriage. Seriously? They are just being whiny assholes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-10-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(09-10-2015 02:07 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 01:58 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No one is forcing them to be in a business where they might have to -- eek! -- serve gays. But it is in the interest of society that all citizens get treated equally.

Do you think business owners should be allowed to discriminate against blacks?

I would hope that part of history never repeats itself. But gay and black are not the same thing. Gay is not a race. Or an ethnicity.

It is, however, not a choice. Just like race or ethnicity. So, yes, it's the same thing.

Quote:What religious basis could one have for not serving blacks? The bible is pretty clear with the whole "do not lay with a man as you would lay with a woman" thing. But I've never heard someone quote a bible passage that says "do not lay with a black as you would lay with a white." Or anything that implicitly advocates racism in the modern age. I'm sure there are passages that were used in the past about living amongst infidels or something that racists used but I don't know of any true white vs. black racism that could be used to justify. But their bible is pretty clear about the whole gay thing.

Well, ask a Mormon.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: