Hearing set for same-sex wedding cake dispute in Oregon

[jamil]

My argument is the act of creating something can be offensive on its own, hence if you find "item x" to be offensive regardless of who its being sold to or for what purpose, you can't be compelled to make "item x", but if you'd sell it to one person you must sell it to anyone who can pay for it.

Why? Why do you believe it is a society's role to compel this? Why do you think society has, not just a right to compel this, but a responsibility to compel this? Why do so many people want the force of government to regulate other people's behavior so much? Please. Just. Stop!

 

[steveh_131]

Why? Why do you believe it is a society's role to compel this? Why do you think society has, not just a right to compel this, but a responsibility to compel this? Why do so many people want the force of government to regulate other people's behavior so much? Please. Just. Stop!

+1 again

 

[hornadylnl]

Why? Why do you believe it is a society's role to compel this? Why do you think society has, not just a right to compel this, but a responsibility to compel this? Why do so many people want the force of government to regulate other people's behavior so much? Please. Just. Stop!

I don't want government to force anyone to participate in anything. But if the government is going to offer a good or service to one, they need to offer it to all. I've asked this same question multiple times in different threads and nobody has addressed it. Can the state deny gun owners access to state lands? If the state allows non gun owners access to a park then they have to allow gun owners access to a park.

 

[jamil]

I don't want government to force anyone to participate in anything. But if the government is going to offer a good or service to one, they need to offer it to all. I've asked this same question multiple times in different threads and nobody has addressed it. Can the state deny gun owners access to state lands? If the state allows non gun owners access to a park then they have to allow gun owners access to a park.

But we are not talking about government services here. We are talking about individuual business owners. I'm not sure how state parks enter into this discussion.

If we're going to have public land the public gets to choose who will set the rules that govern its use. The public seems schizophrenic because it isn't singular. It's plural. And it reflects the compromises of diverse opinions.

 

[hornadylnl]

But we are not talking about government services here. We are talking about individuual business owners. I'm not sure how state parks enter into this discussion.

If we're going to have public land the public gets to choose who will set the rules that govern its use. The public seems schizophrenic because it isn't singular. It's plural. And it reflects the compromises of diverse opinions.

Yet people want to claim religious exemptions for participating in something while using their religion to restrict actions of others.

Is our government based on the tyranny of the majority? The 51% always hold absolute sway?

 

[jamil]

Yet people want to claim religious exemptions for participating in something while using their religion to restrict actions of others.

Is our government based on the tyranny of the majority? The 51% always hold absolute sway?

Who cares that people are selfish? Of course they are. Of course they want it both ways. We're human. We're hypocrites. It's what we do.

And it's not 51% ruling the 49% either. The majority doesn't get its way in the US. The few people who influence the majority do. And the guard is changing and we're all along for the ride. The stodgy old-money rulers are attriting. Giving way to the trendy new-money rulers. Every time a Koch brother dies a Zuckerberg takes his place.

 

[churchmouse]

Who cares that people are selfish? Of course they are. Of course they want it both ways. We're human. We're hypocrites. It's what we do.

And it's not 51% ruling the 49% either. The majority doesn't get its way in the US. The few people who influence the majority do. And the guard is changing and we're all along for the ride. The stodgy old-money rulers are attriting. Giving way to the trendy new-money rulers. Every time a Koch brother dies a Zuckerberg takes his place.

That is truly scary. Brave new world.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Who cares that people are selfish? Of course they are. Of course they want it both ways. We're human. We're hypocrites. It's what we do.

And it's not 51% ruling the 49% either. The majority doesn't get its way in the US. The few people who influence the majority do. And the guard is changing and we're all along for the ride. The stodgy old-money rulers are attriting. Giving way to the trendy new-money rulers. Every time a Koch brother dies a Zuckerberg takes his place.

And this whole subject demonstrates that the perceived tyranny of one set of rulers will be replaced by that of the new ones.

 

[churchmouse]

And this whole subject demonstrates that the perceived tyranny of one set of rulers will be replaced by that of the new ones.

Hail to the new boss.....same as the old boss..............Who sang that???

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hail to the new boss.....same as the old boss..............Who sang that???

Who?

 

[churchmouse]

Who?

I don't know "Who" it was.

Thats why I asked who.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't know "Who" it was.

Thats why I asked who.

Ahhh....well....I'm not sure Who it was either....

 

[red_zr24x4]

Who are we talking about?

 

[churchmouse]

Who are we talking about?

Not sure but I remember throwing countrys around.....before I woke up in a So-Ho doorway.

 

[sparkyfender]

Not sure but I remember throwing countrys around.....before I woke up in a So-Ho doorway.

Pete Townshend, is that you?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Why? Why do you believe it is a society's role to compel this? Why do you think society has, not just a right to compel this, but a responsibility to compel this? Why do so many people want the force of government to regulate other people's behavior so much? Please. Just. Stop!

I've already covered it.

Allowing people to refuse to do business with entire classes of people allows those people to be effectively barred from neighborhoods. We saw this with segregation. If black people can't buy food, rent an apartment, etc. they are effectively banned from living in an area. This strikes me as a larger infringement on the American ideals of freedom than the business owner's rights to elect to not serve a certain class.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

^^^^^ Anybody else get the irony?

 

[hornadylnl]

Who cares that people are selfish? Of course they are. Of course they want it both ways. We're human. We're hypocrites. It's what we do.

And it's not 51% ruling the 49% either. The majority doesn't get its way in the US. The few people who influence the majority do. And the guard is changing and we're all along for the ride. The stodgy old-money rulers are attriting. Giving way to the trendy new-money rulers. Every time a Koch brother dies a Zuckerberg takes his place.

Is that how the constitution works? Is that how the supreme court determines the constitutionality of a law?

 

[jamil]

Who?

I don't know "Who" it was.

Thats why I asked who.

Ahhh....well....I'm not sure Who it was either....

The who is irrelevant. Anymore. It seems. I'm in tune.

Is that how the constitution works? Is that how the supreme court determines the constitutionality of a law?

Well look at the pretzel they made of it with the ACA ruling. I think rule of law is impossible for humankind to maintain regardless of the system. Powerful people wield their power to make the law what they want anyway. But I think I'd rather live in a system like ours and live where at least the illusion of liberty is possible, than live in a system where such illusion is impossible to pull off. Few people in Cuba believe they are free.

 

[jamil]

I've already covered it.

So you're convinced that the laws caused the change. I thought we agreed that at least we can't know that for sure.