|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 3:13:27 GMT
I've been thinking on this and have come to the conclusion tha the logic to all this gay banter (pun intended) is this: Being allowed to refuse service to a gay person or couple based on personal beliefs (religious or otherwise) can easily become on par with denying anyone else service for the same reason. Problem is, it's not permissable or even socially acceptable in a lot of other cases. Say you were brought up in a community where you were taught that black people have an express ticket to hell just for being born black. They're inferior human beings, they're created by the devil, they're wrong in their very nature and if you ever assist them in procreating, you're getting a seat right next to them on that train to hell. This is a religious core belief for you. You were brought up to believe that this is true and you have no reason to believe otherwise, because come on... Why would your parents and your entire community lie to you, right? If a business owner of any sort, based on his or her religious beliefs, is allowed to refuse service to a gay person or couple when they want to get married, why shouldn't you also be allowed to refuse service to black people on the same basis? After all, black marriage leads to black procreation, so aiding them in getting married will get you sent straight to hell, right? If, by law, it's wrong for you to refuse service to a black couple based on your religious beliefs, why should anyone else be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple for the same reason? Why should their religious beliefs be more valid than yours? That's hardly fair, is it? There exists much evidence and precedent to support a singular "man and woman" definition to marriage, you won't find much to back up your black people are from Satan ideology. First off, it IS okay for you to refuse service to someone because they are black, rude but it is your right. That said, black people don't choose to be black, they can't upon realizing their skin is darker than most, decide they no longer want to be black. You do have a choice who or what you have sex with. At its most basic, socially acceptable is determined by convictions of right and wrong by individuals. When individuals are forced to adhere to one side of an argument or the other, that which is socially acceptable is now being skewed by fraud. True, accept barely having the right to tread on the same ground, people DO have the right to be hateful. Now if that hate crosses the line and becomes a physical act against that person, that is a crime. I just don't buy the notion that hate is a crime, it shouldn't be. If I decide I hate people who have sex with dogs, that is my right. What I don't have the right to do is bring harm to the dog----er or his/her property. Offend them? Oh yeah, you bet I would! Not me! If I'm alive in 60 years, aside form that bordering on a miracle since I'm 53 and not in the best of health, I assure you I will still feel the same way about homosexuals. Homosexuality is a mental disorder |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 3:17:08 GMT
where is the point where one person imposes on another? That is simple, your freedoms end where my rights begin |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 3:35:34 GMT
This is a continuation of my comments on the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage from the World News thread. "I reject your reality and substitute my own" A comical statement on the front of a T shirt. Comical that is, until you read the back of the shirt. "And you will also reject your reality and replace it with mine." What is this Reality that needs to be replaced? It's the Reality that most of us live in. It's a sexual Reality. In this Reality, there are two sexes. Male and Female. Some call these opposite sexes, but I prefer the term complementary sexes. This Reality was made that way by the Creator, if you believe in God, or by nature, if you don't. Either way, that's the Reality most of us live in. Now we have a new alternate Reality that a few insist we substitute for our own. In their Reality, there is no sexuality. You are not born a male or a female. You are what you believe you are. You may have been born with all the physical characteristics of a male, but if you don't want to accept that, then you can be female just because you say so. And your sexuality can even change from day to day, or even moment to moment, based on your thoughts. Everyone else living in that Reality must also accept your sexuality based on what you say you are at this instant in time and not what you were a few seconds ago. That's their Reality. It's all about ME and has nothing to do with you. Just accept what I say and all will be fine. Most of us do not accept their Reality. So they have a plan to FORCE us to replace our Reality with theirs. First, they must convince society to totally reject any idea of sexuality because sexuality does not exist in their Reality. If you even mention that a person is of the complimentary sex, you are a sexist. One of those nasty "ist" words that will get you outcast from society. If you point out that there really are physical differences between males and females, even if you view those differences as "positives", you are a woman-hater or man-hater. A HATER! Another label to get you banned. If you don't believe in their concept that your sexual orientation can change from moment to moment based on your own feelings, you must be a bigot or a homophobe. How dare you even THINK that! Obviously, there is something seriously wrong with YOU. And finally, one of the ways to force us to reject our own Reality is to change the definition of the very words we use to describe our Reality. One of those words is "marriage." In our Reality, marriage was defined as the bonding of one man and one woman in a legally recognized contract. Since the very mention of sexuality is condemned in their alternate Reality, that definition of marriage must be changed. And that's what the Supreme Court has just done. As far as I'm concerned, they can label me as a "phobe", or an "ist" or even a bigot. The can legally change the very definition of the words I use, but I will still reject their faulty alternate Reality and keep the one I have. Just bumped this so if anyone missed reading it, here is another chance. Good stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 14, 2015 3:36:35 GMT
As an adult white male with no criminal record, I'm not eligible to receive state financial assistance for Obamacare since I'm not already receiving any other form of aid. My policy is $175 / month for medical-only (no vision or dental). Said policy has a $6000 / year deductible. Put it together, and I'd have to shell out $8100 / year before it will actually kick in. I'm only looking to make $10000 - $12000 this year unless I can successfully change careers or get a promotion. "Affordable" Care Act my fanny. Never-mind that you will have to be incredibly unhealthy to have spent the deductible in the first place I spent most of Monday morning in the ER with kidney stones. The plan I have is a "co-insurance" plan. It turns out that the plan will pay before I hit my deductible, but only a specific percentage and only after it has determined both "how much the medical provider wants" and "how much the company says that the provider can charge". It's only after this is figured out that I get my bill. As you can imagine, this takes an inordinately long time to process. Between how long it's taking to process and how expensive my bill likely is, I have no discretionary income whatsoever. Every cent I've got is frozen because I don't know how much I'm going to be hit with as far as my share goes. Even with insurance, this visit could still break me financially. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 3:56:39 GMT
www.alternet.org/entire-staff-tenn-county-clerks-office-resigns-over-same-sex-marriageWhere "Pope" is the name of one of the staff, not the actual pope.... which leads me to wonder, has the actual pope said anything on the subject, how would he react. After all, I ask this important question. In some sectors of the Christian Church, you are supposed to live in chastity, you are married to the religion, to God. Erm... God is depicted as a Man. You can see where that is going cant you?... I do ask difficult questions dont I?.... We are supposed to love our wives as Christ loves us, this does not imply that we are married to God. I am unaware of any particular religion that teaches that our relationship with God should be as a relationship of marriage. My Bible also says to "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good/true" So even the religion that I was brought up in is no less the subject of scrutiny as any other. However I have come to the conclusion that "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good/true" is in fact good and true. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 4:02:32 GMT
I maintain, homosexuality IS a mental disorder, this is evidence to that "end" |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 4:19:38 GMT
I stand by my first Internet law to defend the right of free speech. I may not fully agree with what they have to say, but, in my own sense of what is right, they have religion, and although I may not agree 100% with that religion, I defend their right to have religion, they have freedom of speech, which is a legal right, and I defend their right to have that, and they have objections. In this way, I argue that the "Fine" imposed on them is outrageous. My whole moral standpoint is that the lack of a (beep)ing cake can cost them their business?... HOW THE HELL CAN WE ALLOW THAT TO BE RIGHT?..... And to "Silence" them from objecting?... I believe the term is "Railroad". Kangaroo court anyone?... This is beyond any form of silly, this is out of the realms of oiur how stupid can you be thread, this if flagrant gobmint' subversiveness to depress those that have a public voice to railroad through "politically correct" laws. I now am "On the side" of the bakers, to defend the right of free speech. To defend the right to trade under Christian beliefs. Now I have to ask. Would the same laws be passed, and the same subversion be used, if a MUSLIM bakery refused to bake a cake under religious beliefs?... Go for it. Ask if you would get the same result via anti-Semitic laws, force the Jews to go bake a BACON SANDWICH..... Precious Snowflake has taken it to far this time. Lets see if I can get this right... One Nation Under God. Am I anywhere close to that?... So where is defending their faith ILLEGAL?.... I think I should not waste an opportunity to shut the hell up right now before I say something that may offend "someone".[/sarcasm...?....] I seriously hope that enough funds are raised to hire a (good? Phft) lawyer, one who will seek and obtain a lawsuit against the public officials who are doing the "railroading" To use a more politically correct term and one the opponents would understand; doing the railroading fist----ing |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 4:22:11 GMT
Never-mind that you will have to be incredibly unhealthy to have spent the deductible in the first place I spent most of Monday morning in the ER with kidney stones. The plan I have is a "co-insurance" plan. It turns out that the plan will pay before I hit my deductible, but only a specific percentage and only after it has determined both "how much the medical provider wants" and "how much the company says that the provider can charge". It's only after this is figured out that I get my bill. As you can imagine, this takes an inordinately long time to process. Between how long it's taking to process and how expensive my bill likely is, I have no discretionary income whatsoever. Every cent I've got is frozen because I don't know how much I'm going to be hit with as far as my share goes. Even with insurance, this visit could still break me financially. Welcome to what my world was until Mrs TLW finally won her disability case. - about 6 years. we were dropping about a thousand dollars a month AFTER the premiums. consider what happened to my brother in law after having kidney stones - the only health insurance HE could get was a $5000 PER INCIDENT deductible. and he would have been paying a couple hundred bucks a month or more for it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 4:23:54 GMT
www.alternet.org/entire-staff-tenn-county-clerks-office-resigns-over-same-sex-marriageWhere "Pope" is the name of one of the staff, not the actual pope.... which leads me to wonder, has the actual pope said anything on the subject, how would he react. After all, I ask this important question. In some sectors of the Christian Church, you are supposed to live in chastity, you are married to the religion, to God. Erm... God is depicted as a Man. You can see where that is going cant you?... I do ask difficult questions dont I?.... We are supposed to love our wives as Christ loves us, this does not imply that we are married to God. I am unaware of any particular religion that teaches that our relationship with God should be as a relationship of marriage. My Bible also says to "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good/true" So even the religion that I was brought up in is no less the subject of scrutiny as any other. However I have come to the conclusion that "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good/true" is in fact good and true. there ARE passages that refer to the church as the bride of Christ. - but nobody I know interprets it as a literal sexual relationship. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 4:24:19 GMT
If someone said to me "No I aint fixing your car because you is an atheist", even though technically they are wrong, I would find someone who will fix my car. I may report them for discrimination, but a simple "sorry" would fix it. If someone said that to me, I wouldn't bother reporting anything. I'd just place my money elsewhere. If that person thinks that way, odds are if they bit the bullet and took my car in, in spite of them having problems with my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), they wouldn't do a proper job anyway. If my choises are to pay them to do a job they don't want to do because they don't like me, or have them tell me they don't like me and find someone else to do the job, I'd rather they were honest. Don't get me wrong, I'd tell my friends and family about it, so they don't go there, but that's about the extent of any "reporting" I'd be doing. The voice of reason! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 4:27:33 GMT
If someone said that to me, I wouldn't bother reporting anything. I'd just place my money elsewhere. If that person thinks that way, odds are if they bit the bullet and took my car in, in spite of them having problems with my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), they wouldn't do a proper job anyway. If my choises are to pay them to do a job they don't want to do because they don't like me, or have them tell me they don't like me and find someone else to do the job, I'd rather they were honest. Don't get me wrong, I'd tell my friends and family about it, so they don't go there, but that's about the extent of any "reporting" I'd be doing. The voice of reason! for my part, if I asked someone to make me a wedding cake and they refused I would most certainly not force them to do it. seems like a VERY good way to get less than their best effort. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 5:02:02 GMT
A business owner has the right to refuse service to ANYONE they see fit not to serve. This idea that because you provide a service, you MUST provide it for everyone is pure B.S. No business owner should cave in to pressure from these ridiculous demands, if baking a "fabulous" cake does not fit into the proprietors pursuit of happiness, there is no reason anyone should be able to force the proprietor to do so. there are two areas of dispute: one is whether you may refuse to provide a service to one person that you provide to another. - and I think no, unless there are significant extenuating reasons. I.E. If I will sell you a Ham sandwich, I must also sell anyone else who requests it a ham sandwich, unless they are doing something that is egregiously wrong, like engaging in a sex act in the middle of my floor, or not wearing a shirt. The other is whether there is a difference in products that I may use as a legitimate reason not to sell one made to order product while being willing to sell another made to order product. I.E. If I am willing to sell a cake that says "2+2=4" must I also be willing to sell a cake that says "2+2=5 for especially large values of 2" and is my refusal to do so on the grounds I don't like math humor legitimate grounds for claiming discrimination. The thing with the ham sandwich is that they didn't ask for just a ham sandwich. As for providing a service for all but a select few, as far as language in non-discrimination laws go, this would not surprise me if the baker was in some sort of violation. However I must question the validity, the constitutionality of said non-discrimination laws. Non-discrimination law certainly has it's place, but it cannot constitutionally over-ride freedom of religion. I know that some will have a different view on this but that is the way I read the constitution. As for the Black haters "religion" that is not a religion, that is a cult. Any group practicing hate and calling it religion is delusional |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 5:07:53 GMT
I see it the same way. There was never a need to re-define marriage other than attacking religion/spirituality from yet another angle. If I am not mistaken, the ostensible reason gay's wanted the right to marry was so that they could receive the same tax and whatever other legal benefits married couples have. A civil union gives them any advantages being "married" does for others. It is really all about the civil union, without this legal status, nobody would be eligible for legal benefits. Actually I don't believe any court has the right or authority to re-define marriage, any attempt to do so should be considered null and void, in general, utterly ignored. interestingly, in Oregon's definition-of-marriage saga, it was proposed to create a "civil union" that carried all the legal ramifications of marriage except the name, and was not restricted by sexual activity - and the homosexual community rejected it on "separate but equal" rejection grounds. - which was about the time I thought "okay, make that the ONLY option." if you want the legal benefits, talk to your county courthouse. if you want the religious sanction, talk to your religious leader. do one or the other or both. at that point it ceases to be my problem. They rejected it on "separate but equal" rejection grounds... I'm not even sure what that means, but even so it is still obviously some seriously flawed "reasoning", I maintain, homosexuality is a MENTAL disorder. The is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this is true. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 5:15:08 GMT
the conversation reminds me of a time I was navigating the People's Republic of Portland in my old white predator van with the ex GF I like to badmouth. (looked something like this)  the section of town we were trying to go south in was a one way grid with streets alternating northbound, no vehicles, northbound, light rail only, northbound, official vehicles only, etc. I accidentally turned into the official vehicles only block, and when I realized it I said "good thing we're white, we look official" at which point she assumed I was talking about our skin color, not the color of the van. I don't know how you resisted installing the tear-drop windows... Ah because then you wouldn't have maintained that "official" look. Well unless it was parked in front of your date's house on Friday evening |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 5:31:42 GMT
Never-mind that you will have to be incredibly unhealthy to have spent the deductible in the first place I spent most of Monday morning in the ER with kidney stones. The plan I have is a "co-insurance" plan. It turns out that the plan will pay before I hit my deductible, but only a specific percentage and only after it has determined both "how much the medical provider wants" and "how much the company says that the provider can charge". It's only after this is figured out that I get my bill. As you can imagine, this takes an inordinately long time to process. Between how long it's taking to process and how expensive my bill likely is, I have no discretionary income whatsoever. Every cent I've got is frozen because I don't know how much I'm going to be hit with as far as my share goes. Even with insurance, this visit could still break me financially. That is just messed up. My current medical bills consist of regular doctor office visits, a trip to the pain clinic for injections every three months, and prescriptions. I have abandoned all hope of ever paying for the bills I owed from therapy and many other charges such as MRI's and what not. I can barely maintain current expense's. At least now that I have been put on disability I have Medicare, that definitely helps keep the cost down to where I can keep current bills from getting out of reach. I stopped answering the phone unless I see particular area codes because I get tired of trying to explain to debt collectors that if the money wasn't important enough for the original billing office to collect, why do they think it is any different for them? I don't owe them money, I never did business with their company, why would I owe them money? I don't like not paying for services I received but when the service provider says "Hmmh this 3rd party is fool enough to pay a percentage, sold" well it no longer is my problem. Is this moral?  |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 5:35:29 GMT
We are supposed to love our wives as Christ loves us, this does not imply that we are married to God. I am unaware of any particular religion that teaches that our relationship with God should be as a relationship of marriage. My Bible also says to "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good/true" So even the religion that I was brought up in is no less the subject of scrutiny as any other. However I have come to the conclusion that "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good/true" is in fact good and true. there ARE passages that refer to the church as the bride of Christ. - but nobody I know interprets it as a literal sexual relationship. Yeah, now that you mention that specifically I do recall such a passage |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 5:37:10 GMT
for my part, if I asked someone to make me a wedding cake and they refused I would most certainly not force them to do it. seems like a VERY good way to get less than their best effort. And perhaps surprise ingredients to boot |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 14, 2015 5:43:07 GMT
for my part, if I asked someone to make me a wedding cake and they refused I would most certainly not force them to do it. seems like a VERY good way to get less than their best effort. And perhaps surprise ingredients to boot Pretty much. I'm an MBA, with my focus being in marketing. As such, I'm a great believer in the potency of word-of-mouth. The way I see it, if a business won't serve you because of _____, then let public opinion handle matters. Tell the folks you know what happened, and in time word will get out. This will alert people in your area as to what's going on, and so they can make a decision. If the company loses more customers because of their policy than they gain, then they may well be forced to reconsider their position... and all without government getting involved unless what's going on is legitimately illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 14, 2015 6:17:08 GMT
I actually read an interesting analysis on the way our society has altered over the years. The author proposed three phases:
1. Honor Society: Your honor is your most important possession, as your status depends on it. Unopposed insults to you must be responded to or you lose status. As a result, you get people dueling.
2. Dignity Society: Your dignity is the same regardless of insults from others. You don't have to kill to keep it, your status is independent of other's assaults, but genuine attacks on you are left to the authorities to punish.
3. Victim Society: To get status (honor, dignity, or what have you) you must prove yourself a victim of someone's actions. The worse the victim, the higher the status. Since you are a victim, you need the authorities to crack down on your enemies.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 14, 2015 6:47:59 GMT
Cases like these are why so many people are against the death penalty. "What if he'd been executed? How many people like him have been executed?" Fair questions and ones that should be taken seriously. Is the hunt for vengeance really so important... ...Giving the death sentence to a robber who just happened to shoot someone during the robbery and will regret doing so for the rest of his life might momentarily make you feel good, but is it really the best punishment? Similarly, does sentencing someone like Anders Behring Breivik (the guy who bombed Oslo and shot up Utoya Island, Norway in 2011) to life in prison make any sense? Is there even the slightest chance of him ever feeling remorse for what he's done, or will he just sit in prison and feel like he's "being unfairly punished for doing what was necessary"? Will keeping him in prison deter any of his followers from doing something similar, or might taking his life possibly do that job just a little more effectively? Giving him the death sentence wouldn't just be about justice for the families. Nothing we can do to him will bring his victims back to life, so it has to about more than that. It has to be about sending a clear message to anyone who thinks like him and harbours thoughts of following in his footsteps. That, and about not wasting valuable resources on keeping a piece of biowaste like him alive. I agree, judges used to be free to use their own discretion and judge individuals as individuals. Now we have so many mandatory sentencing "guidelines" that judges don't have a choice but to dole out the mandatory sentence. There are people doing 5-10 years for a drunk driving conviction. The minimum for third offense is 16-60 months. Granted people need to be aware of how much they had to drink, however not all those doing long sentences blew .25's-.35's many blew just enough over the limit to get a drunk driving. No matter how you feel about drunk driving, a person blowing just over the limit should not get the same sentence as someone who had to be held upright long enough to take a sobriety test. But when you have mandatory sentences and a wad of MADD mutha's perched about the courtroom hell bent on making sure every case involving alcohol and driving gets the mandatory sentence, someone is going to be sentenced unjustly. Mandatory minimum sentences need to be abolished in its entirety. Death sentences should be shelved until a particularly heinous crime or as you pointed out, premeditated/cold blood crimes have been committed and proof is irrefutable. I think the reason behind mandatory sentencing IS the fact that judges used to be free to use their own discretion and judge individuals as individuals. This led to some wildly erratic sentences at times, where one judge would let a murderer off the hook because "he just killed a (insert group judge dislikes here) and those don't really count", while another would sentence someone to death for stealing a pie off his neighbor's windowsill. If there's no baseline for what crime deserves what punishment, you're pretty much left in the hands of the judge and whatever upbringing/personal experience he has and whatever mood he's in on the day of your sentencing. If you think it's bad that someone can get 16-60 months for being .01% over the legal limit, imagine how bad it could get if there was no limit to what the judge could do and he grew up in a home where he was taught that "alcohol is the Devil", or he lost a child or spouse to a drunk driver. Conversely, how much could a drunk driver get away with if the judge was a little too fond of the sauce himself? Establishing a baseline for which crimes should yield which punishments isn't in and of itself a bad thing. But the laws can most certainly be poorly written! California's "three stikes" law springs to mind as one US law that's been widely criticized. |
|
