This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2015, 04:10 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wrong country. Those weren't a factor until the war expanded outside of South Vietnam.

But the fighters in South Vietnam could not have existed without North Vietnam - without which it would just have been a re-run of the Malayan emergency. Notwithstanding that even in 1975 it was large-scale combined operations in a direct military invasion that led to the South's collapse.

(08-04-2015 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yabut, the invader withdrew in both cases. The populace/rebels/resistance was effective enough with existing arms until outside help arrived.

Just like the Colonies until the French helped.

Yes, and that was a long-ass time ago. My point wasn't that that line of reasoning wasn't justified in its time (ie 1780s America), because it was, and it was based on direct experience. It was that that doesn't matter today, because the modern world is a very different place.

Vietnam and Afghanistan (and others) are modern examples.

Quote:I still fail to see how that's remotely applicable to any remotely plausible scenario involving the home soil of the United States in the present day.

The only plausible scenarios (excepting the ever-present threat from The Great White North) involve a natural disaster that weakens the U.S. first.

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
08-04-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 01:29 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I understand this, but their beliefs of the time make clear the intent of the laws they wrote. Judges today try to interpret things based on their own beliefs and prejudices instead of the actual meaning and intent of a law or the constitution. An amendment would solve the problem. When the 14th amendment was written in 1868 did they intend for it to be used for gay marriage? No. Not one bit. And its wrong for judges to utilize its for that purpose.


The Founding Fathers owned slaves.


They fucking owned other human beings.


I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you or anyone else thinks they'd agree with the 14th Amendment being used to help further equality by allowing gay marriage. They knew enough to give us the tools to change the Constitution, knowing that it would need to adapt.


That was enough.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
08-04-2015, 09:22 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 01:56 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Same with gun laws. Would the founders require a permit for something that is already a permitted act under the constitution?

They might have said, "No, we only mean a well-formed militia, not an individal outside a well-formed militia."

Or the part where they looked on dumbfounded at the amount of firepower a current semi-automatic pistol or rifle (let alone machine-guns) is capable of versus the muzzle-loading musket technology of their time, stare in horror of our bloated military and incestuous defense industry, and let out a resounding "WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!?" before bitch-smacking everyone in Congress and the White House.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-04-2015, 10:55 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 09:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  They might have said, "No, we only mean a well-formed militia, not an individal outside a well-formed militia."

Or the part where they looked on dumbfounded at the amount of firepower a current semi-automatic pistol or rifle (let alone machine-guns) is capable of versus the muzzle-loading musket technology of their time, stare in horror of our bloated military and incestuous defense industry, and let out a resounding "WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!?" before bitch-smacking everyone in Congress and the White House.

Yeah, the conception of the founding fathers as this group of omniscient demigods who were able to write a governing document that isn't even five thousand words long, yet includes provisions for every relevant issue of governance from then until the end of time is ridiculous. Things change, get over it. The founding fathers were just men, their constitution is not some infallible gospel document, and they could not possibly have predicted everything it would need to cover, and this too is something that needs to be gotten over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Esquilax's post
09-04-2015, 01:41 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Cakes, fighter jets and founding fathers in one topic. Must be an atheist forum Tongue

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
09-04-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination
(08-04-2015 10:55 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 09:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or the part where they looked on dumbfounded at the amount of firepower a current semi-automatic pistol or rifle (let alone machine-guns) is capable of versus the muzzle-loading musket technology of their time, stare in horror of our bloated military and incestuous defense industry, and let out a resounding "WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!?" before bitch-smacking everyone in Congress and the White House.

Yeah, the conception of the founding fathers as this group of omniscient demigods who were able to write a governing document that isn't even five thousand words long, yet includes provisions for every relevant issue of governance from then until the end of time is ridiculous. Things change, get over it. The founding fathers were just men, their constitution is not some infallible gospel document, and they could not possibly have predicted everything it would need to cover, and this too is something that needs to be gotten over.

I don't know anyone that believes the US Constitution is an infallible gospel document so I don't know if this is an appeal to the absurd or just a plain old straw man. The document is no different than most other things decided by comity in that it is a compromise between competing thoughts. The people that wrote it certainly understood that. They also understood it wasn't perfect and would therefore require modification over time. That's why they included multiple ways to change it, and it has been changed many times.

One thing I think a lot of people lose sight of in debates on this subject is exactly what the US Constitution is. It is charter for the government of the United States. In it the people of this country grant limited powers to the government and reserve specific rights for themselves. Suggestions that times have changed therefore the government should just ignore sections of the document that specifically reserve rights for the people are ignorant. The government should never be allowed to circumvent the rules.

It is also important that the original intent be taken into consideration. In the case of the right to keep and bear arms there can be little doubt that the people that wrote the 2nd amendment intended it to be an individual right. That’s what all the commentary of the time says. For those of you that argue original intent shouldn’t be considered please apply that line of reasoning to the 1st amendment. You know, the one intended to build a wall of separation between church and state, and see where that goes.

None of this means the government can’t put reasonable restrictions on the rights reserved for the people. Your right to free speech does not extend to my living room. The government can put restrictions on types of guns, where they are allowed and even who can have them as long as they don’t try to say no one can have any of them. They can do this if they follow the proper legal procedures. If someone doesn’t like the restrictions they can challenge them in court. If congress (or the states) pass laws the courts decide exceed their authority as granted under the Constitution the courts can shut them down. That is the way the system is supposed to work. That’s the way the system has been working. If you aren’t happy with it then change the system. Don’t however tell me it is OK for the government to circumvent the system in order to get a result you prefer.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
09-04-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 10:55 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Yeah, the conception of the founding fathers as this group of omniscient demigods who were able to write a governing document that isn't even five thousand words long, yet includes provisions for every relevant issue of governance from then until the end of time is ridiculous. Things change, get over it. The founding fathers were just men, their constitution is not some infallible gospel document, and they could not possibly have predicted everything it would need to cover, and this too is something that needs to be gotten over.

I don't know anyone that believes the US Constitution is an infallible gospel document so I don't know if this is an appeal to the absurd or just a plain old straw man.

People can and do argue that.

(I mean, seriously, large portions of the American religious right claim that explicitly - I'm a foreigner and I've heard the claim)

(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Suggestions that times have changed therefore the government should just ignore sections of the document that specifically reserve rights for the people are ignorant.

I don't know anyone that believes this, so I don't know if this is an appeal to the absurd or just a plain old straw man.

Rolleyes

(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  It is also important that the original intent be taken into consideration. In the case of the right to keep and bear arms there can be little doubt that the people that wrote the 2nd amendment intended it to be an individual right. That’s what all the commentary of the time says. For those of you

Like who?

(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  ... that argue original intent shouldn’t be considered please apply that line of reasoning to the 1st amendment. You know, the one intended to build a wall of separation between church and state, and see where that goes.

I don't know what you're imagining here, but, yes, people do in fact do exactly that. Or were the writers of the first amendment concerned with abortion and gay weddings?

Intent and context matter because that's why legal documents say what they do, but as those contexts change then those intents are irrelevant to modern-day interpretations.

(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  None of this means the government can’t put reasonable restrictions on the rights reserved for the people. Your right to free speech does not extend to my living room. The government can put restrictions on types of guns, where they are allowed and even who can have them as long as they don’t try to say no one can have any of them. They can do this if they follow the proper legal procedures. If someone doesn’t like the restrictions they can challenge them in court. If congress (or the states) pass laws the courts decide exceed their authority as granted under the Constitution the courts can shut them down. That is the way the system is supposed to work. That’s the way the system has been working. If you aren’t happy with it then change the system. Don’t however tell me it is OK for the government to circumvent the system in order to get a result you prefer.

I remain unclear as to just who you think you're arguing against?

I mean, "let's ignore laws we don't like because lol" isn't a serious position, is it?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 09:32 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
I don't see how the law would consider discrimination to refuse to create a hateful message - I wouldn't, in anyway, bake a cake with a swastika even if I was paid in gold

On a sidenote, I'm super amused to see Americans so concerned about the "founding fathers" - You see, America is a country with little more than 300 years, if Europe stuck with what each of our countries' founding fathers believed we would be living in middle age theocracies or primitive tribal political organizations. The first king of my country back in 1143 was a Christian and a douche who hit his own mum. What founding leaders believed is important to core principles but it isn't relevant to determine the whole future of a country. We've been trough feudalism, liberalism, fascism, things change - Heck, constitutions change and are replaced after revolutions - Monarchies are sometimes replaced by republics - The bourgeois replaced the nobility and clergymen, so the whole concept of society we have ceases to exist after the current order is entirely replaced by a new one.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I don't know anyone that believes the US Constitution is an infallible gospel document so I don't know if this is an appeal to the absurd or just a plain old straw man.

I feel like what I said works fairly well within the context it was written, where Patriot10mm was arguing that gay marriage legislation made using the constitution is wrong because the founding fathers would not have used it for that purpose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination
(09-04-2015 09:15 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I don't know anyone that believes the US Constitution is an infallible gospel document so I don't know if this is an appeal to the absurd or just a plain old straw man.

People can and do argue that.

(I mean, seriously, large portions of the American religious right claim that explicitly - I'm a foreigner and I've heard the claim)

Examples please. I’ve literally been surrounded by the American religious right for most of my life, and I’ve never heard it.

Quote:
(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Suggestions that times have changed therefore the government should just ignore sections of the document that specifically reserve rights for the people are ignorant.

I don't know anyone that believes this, so I don't know if this is an appeal to the absurd or just a plain old straw man.

Rolleyes

Well now there is a compelling argument.

Quote:
(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  It is also important that the original intent be taken into consideration. In the case of the right to keep and bear arms there can be little doubt that the people that wrote the 2nd amendment intended it to be an individual right. That’s what all the commentary of the time says. For those of you

Like who?

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

Quote:
(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  ... that argue original intent shouldn’t be considered please apply that line of reasoning to the 1st amendment. You know, the one intended to build a wall of separation between church and state, and see where that goes.

I don't know what you're imagining here, but, yes, people do in fact do exactly that. Or were the writers of the first amendment concerned with abortion and gay weddings?

Intent and context matter because that's [i]why legal documents say what they do, but as those contexts change then those intents are irrelevant to modern-day interpretations.

People do exactly that when it suits them. When it doesn’t they are perfectly fine with pretending the second amendment doesn’t protect an individual right but a collective one. Sometimes a collective one that no longer applies because militias couldn’t possibly be effective in a modern context.

Quote:
(09-04-2015 09:03 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  None of this means the government can’t put reasonable restrictions on the rights reserved for the people. Your right to free speech does not extend to my living room. The government can put restrictions on types of guns, where they are allowed and even who can have them as long as they don’t try to say no one can have any of them. They can do this if they follow the proper legal procedures. If someone doesn’t like the restrictions they can challenge them in court. If congress (or the states) pass laws the courts decide exceed their authority as granted under the Constitution the courts can shut them down. That is the way the system is supposed to work. That’s the way the system has been working. If you aren’t happy with it then change the system. Don’t however tell me it is OK for the government to circumvent the system in order to get a result you prefer.

I remain unclear as to just who you think you're arguing against?

I mean, "let's ignore laws we don't like because lol" isn't a serious position, is it?

It is a serious position of people that support laws that effectively ban common citizens from obtaining and keeping arms such as those reversed by District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: