Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/30710-wow-i-cant-believe-news-story-thread.html)

rubber soul 01-02-2018 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [MERIT] (Post 1910468)
That is physical harm. That violates the non-aggression principle. So no, they DON'T have that right by my logic. Refusing to bake someone a cake is not physical harm.



Well I'm not baking you a cake then :p:

[MERIT] 01-02-2018 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubber soul (Post 1910470)
Well I'm not baking you a cake then :p:

If you didn't want to, then I would just go somewhere else. Or bake one myself. Not sue you into bankruptcy. Pretty simple.

And WTF is wrong with this gay couple? Don't you know that you don't fuck with the people who prepare your food? They could shit in it and you would be none the wiser. Everyone knows that.

I'm gonna piss you off, then ingest something that you cooked whilst mad at me. Not a smart move.

Frownland 01-02-2018 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [MERIT] (Post 1910466)
A citizen and their privately owned business is DIFFERENT than a state, Mr. Wordsmith, and they have different rights.

Trust me, I didn't make up these words but yes, the state is different from a private business.

States dictate what private businesses can and can't do. In this instance, the state was asked "are you going to allow businesses to deny rights to customers on the basis of sexual orientation?" Once it reached the courts, the state then had to make a firm stance in the form of law. They said "lemme check the current laws aight" and found that allowing for rights to be denied is the same as directly denying them based on longstanding precedent. They're not allowed to do that, so disallowing discrimination was the obvious choice.

[MERIT] 01-02-2018 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1910477)
the state was asked "are you going to allow businesses to deny rights to customers on the basis of sexual orientation?" Once it reached the courts, the state then had to make a firm stance in the form of law. They said "lemme check the current laws aight" and found that allowing for rights to be denied is the same as directly denying them based on longstanding precedent. They're not allowed to do that, so disallowing discrimination was the obvious choice.

Well, then that court and those laws are wrong. Just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Frownland 01-02-2018 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [MERIT] (Post 1910481)
Just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Sure, just know that denying privileges is in fact the same as infringing on rights, so maybe save that point for when you're deep in the echo chamber having beers.

[MERIT] 01-02-2018 12:21 PM

If this were a gay bakery refusing to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church, everyone would be on the side of the bakery. It's a crock of shit.

Frownland 01-02-2018 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [MERIT] (Post 1910483)
If this were a gay bakery refusing to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church, everyone would be on the side of the bakery.

Nah given that WBC members were holding a wedding and acted like any other reasonable customer would, of course. I tend to avoid motivated reasoning like that when it comes to law.

[MERIT] 01-02-2018 12:22 PM

It's all about SJW's cramming their agenda onto the masses, framed as the sob story of rights infringement. Simple as that.

Frownland 01-02-2018 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1910484)
Nah given that WBC members were holding a wedding and acted like any other reasonable customer would, of course. I tend to avoid motivated reasoning like that when it comes to law.

Motivated reasoning like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by [MERIT] (Post 1910485)
It's all about SJW's cramming their agenda onto the masses, framed as the sob story of rights infringement. Simple as that.

Many legal scholars side with those horrible horrible SJWs due to the fact that law needs to be consistent.

MicShazam 01-02-2018 12:28 PM

Complaining about those mean "SJW's" and their evil agenda is the quickest way possible to getting put in my "not to be taken seriously" bin.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 PM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.