Here it comes again: Arizona Christian Artists May Face Jail Time for Refusing to Service Gay Wedding

[TomSea]

Pro-Islam, attacking Christian values, telling others they are forcing beliefs on others and doing like so many of the GLTB lobby do, defend abortions because those people sure don't have it in them to do things, sometimes one has to call a spade a spade.

[Jazzhead]

It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion.  @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.

Thanks,  thackney.  I appreciate it. 

[thackney]

Thanks,  thackney.  I appreciate it.

I appreciate the civil discussion.  If we all agree on everything, there is little reason for a forum.

If I cannot defend my position, I may not really understand the issue.  I've had my mind changed in similar situations.

[TomSea]

It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion.  @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.

JH has never addressed the fact, the Supreme Court upheld slavery; for how revered the poster's arguments rely on just saying constitutional right and accusing others of discriminating over a man-made concoction that is only 2 years old.

[TomSea]

Gays brought in the HIV virus and spread it, killing thousands in the US due to unsafe sex pra

I appreciate the civil discussion.  If we all agree on everything, there is little reason for a forum.

If I cannot defend my position, I may not really understand the issue.  I've had my mind changed in similar situations.

Somehow I missed that civility when the poster calls the nominee of the Republican Party a Fascist and never defended that as well.

[Jazzhead]

Pro-Islam, attacking Christian values, telling others they are forcing beliefs on others and doing like so many of the GLTB lobby do, defend abortions because those people sure don't have it in them to do things, sometimes one has to call a spade a spade.

I have not defended abortion.   I am not "pro-Islam", but neither am I prejudiced against this religion.   I have not "attacked Christian values";  I've only argued that a store owner may not arbitrarily discriminate in violation of the law, and that there are valid and Constitutional reasons for such laws.

 I understand your perspective - a Christian shop owner has the right to deny service to a sinner (and I presume you support the same right being exercised by a Muslim shop owner).   But I think religion has nothing to do with fair dealing in commercial contexts.  If you advertise a service, then provide it.  How that makes me a "progressive" is beyond me.       

[TomSea]

It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion.  @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.

It's not a personal attack, how dare you be so self-righteous, if one is espousing progressive-ism, calling Trump a fascist, accusing Christians of forcing their values on others, being sympathetic to Muslims, callously talking about and from a high abortion state apparently, about a woman's right, then, just espousing progressive-ism seems proper to say, sorry, you seem to want to quell conversation yourself that you are upholding for others.

[Jazzhead]

Gays brought in the HIV virus and spread it, killing thousands in the US due to unsafe sex pra
Somehow I missed that civility when the poster calls the nominee of the Republican Party a Fascist and never defended that as well.

I wish the new President well.  I've said so, and praised his Cabinet appointments.   Sure, I was a NeverTrump,  but check the tone and content of my posts since the election.  You want to keep fighting wars after you've won.  Stop being a sore winner.   

[TomSea]

I appreciate the civil discussion.  If we all agree on everything, there is little reason for a forum.

If I cannot defend my position, I may not really understand the issue.  I've had my mind changed in similar situations.

Are you the moderator? If that was a personal attack report it.

Otherwise, just saying that someone's views repeatedly seem to lean left, democratics or progressive does not seem to be in error especially when that person seemed to bring up their abortion views as well.

Supreme Court upheld Gay Marriage and made abortion a right in 1973, okay.

But it also upheld Slavery, if one leans on the SCOTUS as the ultimate law, then it works both ways.

Of course, this assails one argument so was totally ignored because, yes, of course, one is against slavery.

[thackney]

Are you the moderator? If that was a personal attack report it.

Otherwise, just saying that someone's views repeatedly seem to lean left, democratics or progressive does not seem to be in error especially when that person seemed to bring up their abortion views as well.

Supreme Court upheld Gay Marriage and made abortion a right in 1973, okay.

But it also upheld Slavery, if one leans on the SCOTUS as the ultimate law, then it works both ways.

Of course, this assails one argument so was totally ignored because, yes, of course, one is against slavery.

Bringing past arguments into new topics never seems helpful to a discussion forum.  My 2¢

Some forums ban the practice.  It shuts down the discussion, which was the point of the forum.

The attempt to make this about slavery seems like a thread hijack, also only my 2¢

[TomSea]

Bringing past arguments into new topics never seems helpful to a discussion forum.  My 2¢

Some forums ban the practice.  It shuts down the discussion, which was the point of the forum.

The attempt to make this about slavery seems like a thread hijack, also only my 2¢

Then why are you talking about abortion? Because JH brought it up? If anyone is hijacking a thread, you all seemed to do it first. My 2 cents.

[TomSea]

Bringing past arguments into new topics never seems helpful to a discussion forum.  My 2¢

Some forums ban the practice.  It shuts down the discussion, which was the point of the forum.

The attempt to make this about slavery seems like a thread hijack, also only my 2¢

Also, no, if someone is relying on Supreme Court cases to make their case, now you are trying to make feedback on other Supreme Court cases off-topic?

Gotcha!

[thackney]

Then why are you talking about abortion? Because JH brought it up? If anyone is hijacking a thread, you all seemed to do it first. My 2 cents.

I was responding to Jazzhead's comment on the subject.  We have been having an ongoing discussion at the same time on the abortion issue and honestly I lost track of which thread we were talking on.  I'll agree with you on this; it was a distraction on this thread and should have been placed on the other.

[MOD3]

Let's back off of the caffeine for now, and stick to the topic of this thread.

[Jazzhead]

He's ok, he just thinks a little differently. At least he's thinking which is better than the progressives.

Thanks, IC.  I appreciate it.   

[bigheadfred]

Let's back off of the caffeine for now, and stick to the topic of this thread.

where

NO! NO!  I'm indulging myself with a personal attack as we speak.

OK. That hurt SOOOO good.

Following along here I have decided everyone should be forced to do business with all the businesses where they live. I can't be a discriminating buyer because I am discriminating against businesses that have similar products and services than the ones I do shop with.

[geronl]

My labor is my body and my dominion, not the states and not societies'. I will not labor for the benefit of evil and I do not have to.

Telling me to quit working if I refuse is fascist; plain and bald-faced evil. Working is our right, their personal perversion is not.

[CSM]

Perhaps the compromise is rather simple - just let the storeowner post a sign indicating he provides services for religious weddings only.   

Better yet, we could simplify this and by requiring them to post a red cross on their storefront.  Heck, we could do this for all different religious business owners, red crosses, yellow stars, and on and on....

Wait, that sounds familiar!

[CSM]

I want nothing to do with statist progressivism.  What I argue for is individual liberty.  Some issues, like this one, are difficult because one person's liberty (the consumer) conflicts with another's (the shop owner).   I've suggested at several places what I think are reasonable ways to resolve the conflict.   Why not allow a wedding business to state to the public that it provides services to celebrate religious marriages only?   

Obviously,  you've noticed that I've been posting recently on an abortion thread as well.  But I'm no "abortion defender", as I've been accused of over there.   I think abortion is morally wrong, as do most here.   But that's not the issue - the issue is whether abortions should be discouraged and reduced by effective means that don't require the police power of the state.   A woman has the right to decide whether to bear a child - I can think of nothing more fundamental to a woman's liberty.   Freedom has consequences - people make bad or even immoral choices.   But that does not justify the government's abridgment of liberty,  especially in such a fundamental matter as this.

You have no understanding of the meaning of Liberty.  I suggest you find some good sources and learn more about the topic.  In fact, in the above you claim that a consumer's liberty is harmed by a business (property owner) that is willing to voluntarily enter an economic relationship.  Yet, at the same time you fail to recognize the liberty of an unborn child and claim that it is paramount to a woman's liberty to murder another human being.

Your understanding of liberty could not be more incorrect.

[Jazzhead]

Better yet, we could simplify this and by requiring them to post a red cross on their storefront.  Heck, we could do this for all different religious business owners, red crosses, yellow stars, and on and on....

Wait, that sounds familiar!

Yes, I know what you're alluding to,  but I'm serious.   A public accommodation is supposed to provide its goods and services to all comers without regard to race, faith, etc.  But many here say that's inconsistent with religious liberty of a wedding services provider that feels he is morally obligated to refuse service to those he concludes are sinners.   So why not let a religious business owner adopt a policy of restricting his services to weddings that are solemnized by the church?   So long as that policy is publically posted, the business owner can operate in accordance with his conscience and his customers who seek to celebrate a purely civil wedding or ceremony are on notice that the business owner may reject their business.   

[HonestJohn]

My labor is my body and my dominion, not the states and not societies'. I will not labor for the benefit of evil and I do not have to.

Telling me to quit working if I refuse is fascist; plain and bald-faced evil. Working is our right, their personal perversion is not.

This is exactly what we tell people if they would for a business whose message the employee finds evil.  Such as a liberal employee of Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A.

Just sayin'.

[Jazzhead]

You have no understanding of the meaning of Liberty.  I suggest you find some good sources and learn more about the topic.  In fact, in the above you claim that a consumer's liberty is harmed by a business (property owner) that is willing to voluntarily enter an economic relationship.  Yet, at the same time you fail to recognize the liberty of an unborn child and claim that it is paramount to a woman's liberty to murder another human being.

Your understanding of liberty could not be more incorrect.

Consumers have rights,  business owners have rights.  Here they appear to conflict and you insist on a legal resolution.  Well, I've proposed one,  that accommodates both.   I laugh at your statement that I don't understand the meaning of liberty -  your notion is your way or the highway,  and if the consumer is tossed from your store because of your arbitrary (and secret) demand that he conform to your moral values,  then tough toenails.  I think you're a perfect candidate for progressivism.

As for abortion,  that's off-topic for this thread.   But I bet you're a male who'll never have to endure nine months of pregnancy with no support from family or partner.   The woman's liberty and self-determination no doubt means nothing to you - and again, such callousness is more akin, IMO, to progressivism than conservatism. 

I don't defend the horrible practice of abortion.  But I defend a woman's liberty just as I do my own,  and seek to deter and reduce abortions by other, more effective means than calling upon the police power of the state.     

[Sanguine]

This is exactly what we tell people if they would for a business whose message the employee finds evil.  Such as a liberal employee of Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A.

Just sayin'.

What part of working for Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a would be a problem for a liberal leftist employee?  The paycheck?  The not working on Sunday?  What?

[geronl]

  A public accommodation

I reject the term.

[SirLinksALot]

"a public accomodation".

I reject the term.

Can you explain to us what it is about the above term you object to?