Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 24     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,394
Reply with quote  #151 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Lost_1 - My position is any product you make available to a straight couple you have to make the same product available to a gay couple.  Now can we stick to my hypothetical for one moment and take this one step at a time?  If you don't accept the "case in the display" example I'm offering up, then I don't have to continue with you any longer.  I'll know right then and there you have no line where you will accept gays having the right to buy a wedding cake from a baker who doesn't want to sell them one.  Please, one step at a time.  Where do you stand with walking in and buying cakes in the display?



New splint today, better range of motion with right fingers, but still hurts to type very much. Maybe first/middle of next week back to full form.

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,040
Reply with quote  #152 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachB25
Dewey,.... I am not judging you nor any gay person.


Wait...what?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #153 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachB25
Dewey, I want to make this clear.  I am not judging you nor any gay person.  That will be done, according to my religious beliefs, by a higher power. 


Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Because your hypotheticals don't matter. 


CoachB and mikec - This is not about being judgmental or putting two men on top of a cake.  I know very little about religion and I know nothing about who may be subject to eternal damnation.  Can we get past all these complexities and just focus on this one little deal?  Is that so hard?  I have a simple real life example and I'm asking a simple question.  I'm not interested in any slippery slope regarding what may happen next.  Pretty soon I expect to hear somebody say not only do they want bakers to make them a wedding cake but now they want the baker to dance with both gay newlyweds.  Please, enough already with all the what ifs.  Let me try once more.

A bakery sells wedding cakes.  They are right there in the display case.  Just fork out $150 and take it home.  A straight and gay couple show up to buy one for their wedding that day.  The straight couple chooses the one on the left and pays for it.  The gay couple picks the one on the right and the owners says, "sorry, we won't sell gay couples a cake".

I hope you're still with me here.  The question is, do you want the owner of the bakery to have the right to refuse to sell the cake to the gay couple?  I don't. 

I think it's time to stop confusing the readers by fogging the issue.  Enough with the suggestion the baker's are going to have to put two men statues on top.  Stop suggesting that soon bakers will be required to hang out at the wedding he/she despises.  It isn't true.  Stop making this issue more than it is and simply be straight with the readers.  No more being coy.  Let's just go to level one first.  Please tell the readers whether you think the owner should have the right to say "no" when the gay couple walks in?  Can he/she deny the sale of a wedding cake sitting right there in the display?  For once, tell the readers where you stand on this example.  Please.  Once you state your position here, we'll move to level two.  Thanks.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,683
Reply with quote  #154 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachB25
Dewey, I want to make this clear.  I am not judging you nor any gay person.  That will be done, according to my religious beliefs, by a higher power. 


Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Because your hypotheticals don't matter. 


CoachB and mikec - This is not about being judgmental or putting two men on top of a cake.  I know very little about religion and I know nothing about who may be subject to eternal damnation.  Can we get past all these complexities and just focus on this one little deal?  Is that so hard?  I have a simple real life example and I'm asking a simple question.  I'm not interested in any slippery slope regarding what may happen next.  Pretty soon I expect to hear somebody say not only do they want bakers to make them a wedding cake but now they want the baker to dance with both gay newlyweds.  Please, enough already with all the what ifs.  Let me try once more.

A bakery sells wedding cakes.  They are right there in the display case.  Just fork out $150 and take it home.  A straight and gay couple show up to buy one for their wedding that day.  The straight couple chooses the one on the left and pays for it.  The gay couple picks the one on the right and the owners says, "sorry, we won't sell gay couples a cake".

I hope you're still with me here.  The question is, do you want the owner of the bakery to have the right to refuse to sell the cake to the gay couple?  I don't. 

I think it's time to stop confusing the readers by fogging the issue.  Enough with the suggestion the baker's are going to have to put two men statues on top.  Stop suggesting that soon bakers will be required to hang out at the wedding he/she despises.  It isn't true.  Stop making this issue more than it is and simply be straight with the readers.  No more being coy.  Let's just go to level one first.  Please tell the readers whether you think the owner should have the right to say "no" when the gay couple walks in?  Can he/she deny the sale of a wedding cake sitting right there in the display?  For once, tell the readers where you stand on this example.  Please.  Once you state your position here, we'll move to level two.  Thanks.


This is your prediction.  I predict differently.  The gay lobby used to argue that gay marriage was just about equality.  When it was pointed out that civil unions offer the exact same rights and privileges as marriage, they demanded the "right" to use the term marriage.  This is about acceptance of a lifestyle.


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #155 
pabar - It's not important to me what you think this is all about.  I imagine you have a lot of thoughts.  It's not important to me what CoachB thinks regarding judgment.  I just want to know if you think the store owner in my example should have the right to deny the sale of the cake in the display case to the gay couple who just walked in.  If you can't tell the readers where you stand here, at least have the courtesy to tell them why you won't say.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,394
Reply with quote  #156 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Because your hypotheticals don't matter.  If there is anything that is not perfect, they will get sued, they will lose, and it will cost them their business.

The fact that you fail to see is that buying a "cake off the shelf" isn't the goal.  The goal is to have their lifestyle validated.  To do, it's all in or all out.

You're trying to split hairs.  In the real world, that isn't the way it works.



Gee, where have I heard this before?


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/?UTM_SOURCE=yahoo


Should Mom-And-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed?

The attack on Memories Pizza and its implications

What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Alvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.

Should we destroy their livelihoods?

If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a papusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?

Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief.

Whereas declining to cater a gay wedding affects people on one day of their life at most, denies them access to no public accommodation, and would seem to signal discomfort with the institution of same-sex marriage more than animus toward gay people (so long as we're still talking about businesses that gladly serve gays). I also suspect that the sorts of businesses that are uncomfortable catering a hypothetical gay wedding aren't uniquely averse to events where same-sex couples are celebrating nuptials. I'd wager, for example, that they'd feel a religious obligation to refrain from catering an art exhibition filled with sacrilegious pieces like Piss Christ, the awards ceremony for pornography professionals, a Planned Parenthood holiday party, or a Richard Dawkins speaking engagement.

A faction of my fellow gay-marriage proponents see things differently.

The latest opponents of gay marriage to be punished for their religious objections to the practice are the owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana.

Matt Welch lays out what happened:

1) Family owners of small-town Indiana pizzeria spend zero time or energy commenting on gay issues.

2) TV reporter from South Bend walks inside the pizzeria to ask the owners what they think of the controversial Religious Restoration Freedom Act. Owner Crystal O'Connor responds, "If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no….We are a Christian establishment." O'Connor also says—actually promises is the characterization here—that the establishment will continue to serve any gay or non-Christian person that walks through their door.

3) The Internet explodes with insults directed at the O'Connor family and its business, including a high school girls golf coach in Indiana who tweets "Who's going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?" Many of the enraged critics assert, inaccurately, that Memories Pizza discriminates against gay customers.

4) In the face of the backlash, the O'Connors close the pizzeria temporarily, and say they may never reopen, and in fact might leave the state. "I don't know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it's safe to reopen," Crystal O'Connor tells The Blaze. "I'm just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don't have anymore," Kevin O'Connor tells the L.A. Times.

The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I'll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let's go burn that family's business to the ground.

And I believe that the subset of the gay rights movement intent on destroying their business and livelihood has done more harm than good here–that they've shifted their focus from championing historic advances for justice to perpetrating small injustices against marginal folks on the other side of the culture war. "The pizzeria discriminated against nobody," Welch wrote, "merely said that it would choose not to serve a gay wedding if asked. Which it never, ever would be, because who asks a small-town pizzeria to cater a heterosexual wedding, let alone a gay one?" They were punished for "expressing a disfavored opinion to a reporter."

To what end?

Proponents of using the state to punish businesses like this often draw analogies to Jim Crow. Julian Sanchez has persuasively addressed the shortcomings of that argument (even presuming that opponents of gay marriage are motivated by bigotry):

...The “purist” libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregation—which had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated “private” discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.

We ultimately settled on rules barring race discrimination in employment, housing, and access to “public accommodations”—which, though it clearly restricted the associational freedom of some racist business owners within a limited domain, was nevertheless justifiable under the circumstances: The interest in restoring civic equality was so compelling that it trumped the interest in associational choice within that sphere. But we didn’t deny the existence of that interest—appalling as the racist’s exercise of it might be—and continue to recognize it in other domains. A racist can still invite only neighbors of certain races to dinner parties, or form exclusive private associations, or as a prospective employee choose to consider only job offers from firms run or staffed primarily by members of their own race.  Partly, of course, this is because regulations in these domains would be difficult or impossible to enforce—but partly it’s because the burden on associational freedom involved in requiring nondiscrimination in these realms would be unacceptably high.

Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some don’t. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We don’t see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while I’ve seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.

Rather, the actual cases we’ve been hearing about recently involve bigoted* photographers or bakers—who run small businesses but are effectively acting as short-term employees—who balk at providing their services to gay couples who are planning weddings. (I take for granted that gay marriage should, of course, be legal everywhere.)  What’s the balance of burdens in these cases? The discrimination involved here doesn’t plausibly deny the gay couples effective civic equality: There are plenty of bakers and photographers who would be only too happy to take their money. Under the circumstances, the urge to either fine or compel the services of these misguided homophobes  comes across as having less to do with avoiding dire practical consequences for the denied couple than it does with symbolically punishing a few retrograde yokels for their reprehensible views. And much as I’d like for us all to pressure them to change those views—or at the very least shame them into changing their practices—if there turn out to be few enough of them that they’re not creating a systemic problem for gay citizens, it’s hard to see an interest sufficiently compelling to justify legal compulsion—especially in professions with an inherently expressive character, like photography. In short: Yes, these people are a$$holes, but that alone doesn’t tell us how to balance their interest in expressive association against competing interests at this particular point in our history.

Perhaps that excerpt convinced some readers to rethink using state coercion to punish an atypically religious baker, photographer, or pizza seller, but they remain convinced that informal punishment of the Memories Pizza family is still appropriate.

The question I'd ask those who want to use non-state means to punish mom-and-pop businesses that decline to cater gay weddings is what, exactly, their notion of a fair punishment is. Nearly every supporter of gay marriage is on board with efforts to publicly tell people that their position is wrongheaded–I've participated in efforts like that for years and insist that respectful critique and persuasion is more effective than shaming. What about other approaches? If their Yelp rating goes down by a star does the punishment fit the "crime"? Is there a financial loss at which social pressure goes from appropriate to too much? How about putting them out of business? Digital mobs insulting them and their children? Email and phone threats from anonymous Internet users? If you think that any of those go too far have you spoken up against the people using those tactics?

(If not, is it because you're afraid they might turn on you?)

A relatively big digital mob has been attacking this powerless family in rural Indiana,** but I don't get the sense that its participants have reflected on or even thought of these questions. I don't think they recognize how ugly, intolerant and extreme their actions appear or the effect they'll have on Americans beyond the mainstream media, or that their vitriolic shaming these people has ultimately made them into martyrs. I fear that a backlash against their tactics will weaken support for the better angels of the gay rights movement at a time when more progress needs to be made, and that they're turning traditionalists into a fearful, alienated minority with a posture of defensiveness that closes them off to persuasion.

And that's a shame.

The religious impulse to shy away from even the most tangential interaction with gay weddings can be met with extremely powerful and persuasive counterarguments so long as we're operating in the realm of reason rather than coercion–so long as we're more interested in persuading than shaming or claiming scalps. Thanks to past persuasion, evangelicals are already evolving on this issue, as David Brooks points out, observing that "many young evangelicals understand that their faith should not be defined by this issue. If orthodox Christians are suddenly written out of polite society as modern-day Bull Connors, this would only halt progress, polarize the debate and lead to a bloody war of all against all."

As an example of a persuader, consider my colleague Jonathan Rauch, who advises the faithful that while they might mean "just leave us alone," others hear, "what we want most is to discriminate against you," a needlessly alienating message when there is "a missionary tradition of engagement and education, of resolutely and even cheerfully going out into an often uncomprehending world, rather than staying home with the shutters closed." He adds, "In this alternative tradition, a Christian photographer might see a same-sex wedding as an opportunity to engage and interact: a chance, perhaps, to explain why the service will be provided, but with a moral caveat or a prayer. Not every gay customer would welcome such a conversation, but it sure beats having the door slammed in your face." The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do.


*While I grant that there are plenty of people whose opposition to gay marriage is rooted in bigotry, my belief is that some opposition to same-sex marriage is clearly not. I challenge anyone who disagrees to read (as just one of many counterexamples) the lovingly and beautifully written "Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith," or even Mark Oppenheimer's well-written profile of its author, and to maintain the absolutist position.

**I'd be fascinated to how many grandparents of mob participants oppose gay marriage and what degree of social stigma they would want directed toward them.


__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #157 
Dewey, first Wedding Cakes aren't displayed in a case.   They are very personal and the design is a sit down affair where the baker and the customer design it together.  At least that is how it is here.  Secondly, the cake is delivered to the wedding site.  So for this example, they would have to enter the place of the wedding and/or reception. 

Next, the baker has a belief in the Bible.  It tells them: (http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality)

1 Timothy 1:10 ESV / 528 helpful votes

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV / 401 helpful votes

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

1 Timothy 1:10-11 ESV / 317 helpful votes

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Mark 10:6-9 ESV / 296 helpful votes

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jude 1:7 ESV / 272 helpful votes

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Romans 1:27 ESV / 212 helpful votes

And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

This list could go on and on.  
 

2 Timothy 3:12 ESV / 16 helpful votes

Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, ... 

Again, in the end, there will be a Judgement Day.  I don't know what that Judgement will be.  Every Christian needs to make sure that when that day comes, they can defend their actions. 

spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,387
Reply with quote  #158 
Come on Coach. It's a yes or no answer. No variables, no logic, no exceptions.
It's a page right out of the Stephanapoulus play book. Throw out gotcha hypotheticals and then try and twist the answers to demonize to respondent.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,394
Reply with quote  #159 
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/






__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,394
Reply with quote  #160 

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 3,713
Reply with quote  #161 
Dewey, the answer is YES, the baker should be able to tell them to take their business elsewhere. Business owners decline to do business with people for many reasons. If a business owner doesn't like you personally, like your opinions, like your choice to be a horn schwaggler, or whatever, he should be able to tell you to take your business elsewhere. The market will adjust. People vote with their feet and their wallet.
The problem with 'protected classes' is that they are arbitrarily created by vocal minorities. The potential for continuing creation of new 'oppressed groups' is endless. The other problem is that 'discrimination' is subjective, and will always be a two-sided perspective that can never be agreed upon. You see discrimination against homos, I see a business owner exercising their first amendment rights. Those two perspectives will never reconcile.

__________________
"Whatever, if I get the opportunity I wack and stack em."
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #162 
EG - Thank you.  I know that's the same position most all Conservatives hold and it's a relief to see one capable of giving a straight-up answer.  The question readers must have is why couldn't more just say it out loud?  I was just about to explain to the readers the "why" when you posted.  I'll elaborate a little more here.

It's better to blow it out of proportion to try and disguise the argument.  If you admit to the American people that if two couples walk into a bakery to by pre-made wedding cakes and the gay couple is denied, most are going to raise their eyebrows.  That isn't going to go over well with most Americans.  For this reason, most Conservatives are afraid to answer this basic example.  Better to blow it out of proportion.  Tell the voters it's about two gay guys holding hands in your store.  Tell them it's about having to write something weird on the cake.  Tell them it's a long and close process to buy a cake and maybe your argument will sound better.  Heck, say it's about putting two men on the cake and these Conservatives will think they faked the American people out of their shoes.

Not a chance.  Conservatives for the most part don't even want a gay couple to expect the right to walk in and buy a cupcake if it's meant for a gay wedding.  They want the owners to have a right to say no.  Forget about a cake.  Pretend it's a rental joint and the gay couple wants to pick up ten tables and eighty chairs.  The Conservatives for the most part want the owner to have the right to say "no" to this gay couple.  Maybe somebody else here will confirm or deny the accuracy of this last example.

As always, I don't mind the fact others think differently and take a different stance than I do.  The problem, similar with many Conservatives, particularly politicians, is the refusal to identify their stance in hopes voters might stay confused.  I'm confident the readers know, and have known for some time seeing how it appeared nobody was going to say, Conservatives want owners to have a right to deny "wedding products" to gay people.  Without a doubt, this includes a bakery item already made and sitting in the display case. 

It's my true hope the vast number of American citizens don't want business owners to have the right to deny the gay community in the ways I just explained.  It is unnecessary to fog the issue and talk of folks being mandated to be inside and part of a gay wedding.  That's ridiculous.  Somebody here try and find a lost lawsuit that required a person to be in attendance of a wedding.  That's completely misleading and I, like most Americans, would never support mandating such a situation.  An entirely different and blown out of proportion story in order to disguise a more sinister and simple discriminatory practice such as my "you can't purchase that" example.  If ever there were a straw man argument, this fear mongering example that religious people will be forced to be in attendance of gay weddings, is certainly one.
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 3,713
Reply with quote  #163 
Dewey. As is sometimes the case, you paint conservatives with a broad brush, and make numerous conclusionary and conjecture laden statements. Irrefutable, partially irrelevant, and an inevitable rabbit hole if you receive a reply. That's not a personal statement towards you or your views, its a statement towards your verbage. And, you state the obvious. ALL politicians won't state an accurate truthful statement because they need the votes from voters of minimal intellect/understanding/motivation. That is the nature of the political game in this country. From my perspective, and this is something that I have alluded to in different posts over the last year, the GOP is actually too honest for their own good. I would advise them to look at things this way:
1) You have the best vision for this country going forward; less big government, more state and local control; dump and reconstruct the IRS; truly control the flow of immigrants.
2) You need to be in the White House. 
3) To get there, do what everyone does.....promise the moon, tell those voters what they want to hear, pander to the masses who want government support and protection for their various lifestyle choices that they force on others, and for god's sake, avoid or lie about your opinions on abortion, God, Islam, and gun rights. Save that for your victory lap.
4) Take the White House, and then implement #1.
My only caveat to that is IMO the ACA is fundamentally the right way to go. It is. It needs adjustments and alterations, but the essence of it works.

__________________
"Whatever, if I get the opportunity I wack and stack em."
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #164 
Early Grace - Bingo !!  [thumb]  However that does not eliminate the need to try to understand the other guy's perspective, agree or disagree. Goes under the "I might disagree with what you say, but I certainly give you the right to say and think it" (except with vulgar and cruel attacks).  Motive is a Proteus when examined under a microscope.  
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,375
Reply with quote  #165 
[bawl]
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #166 
EG - I do my best to avoid being too broad.  I think I succeed far more than others.  I'd love to see you write the same criticism the next time somebody says "Liberals" hate this or that.  In most cases, my friends on the other side here don't even try.  In any event, I do say "some" and "many" more often than not.  I fully understand all Conservatives are not alike.  I think you proved as much here.

I'm not surprised you feel Conservatives are too honest.  Many obviously agree with you and try to be less than clear, explaining why I've spent recent days trying to prove as much.  Hopefully you now understand the reasoning behind the effort I put in to illustrate the facts as I see them for those who may read here.  Somebody has to counter that "refusal" to be too honest.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,375
Reply with quote  #167 
Oh, we've been honest.  You can't take the honesty and whimper like a little puppy.

 This is nothing new folks.  A person makes an observation about the leftists, they are required to make another post for equal time for the other side.  Oh the inequality of it all.  Thought that was some of EarlyGrayce's best efforts.  Is that too biased joiseydude?

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #168 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyGrayce
Dewey.  And, you state the obvious. ALL politicians won't state an accurate truthful statement because they need the votes from voters of minimal intellect/understanding/motivation. That is the nature of the political game in this country.


EG - While there is some truth to this, (you might have read some of the attacks on a certain President for being less than clear at times), it seems to hit the Right to a much greater extent.  Maybe you can shed some light as to why it is so easy to push Republicans into a tight corner with various questions.  I just listened to Rush say these guys need to stop going on "Liberal" shows and stay away from their questions.  I just don't see Democrats suffering the same problem in any great degree.  I'd be interested as to why you think that is?

My opinion would be, and has been, many don't really have convictions one way or the other and are mostly in partisan mode.  If you try to illustrate the double standard, many just clam up.  One day a Conservative group, and/or Republican Governor, are putting together health care reform and the next day a Dem adopts there plan while all he** breaks loose.  Don't agree to support the Dem POTUS when it comes to bombing Syria and then later call him out for not bombing enough.  Cry foul for a supposed foreign born Dem President and then totally ignore a confirmed foreign born GOP candidate.  Admit you think the Christian baker should have a right to deny that cake in the display case to a gay couple but clam up when asked if the Muslim restaurant owner can deny women whose heads aren't covered.  It seems to me when one tries to play all sides, one gets trapped in this world of contradictions, using a word I picked up from another.  Suddenly you can't verbally state a position one way or the other.  I'm not sure it's about honesty or about this rabbit hole theory some you like to describe, but it sure is an odd phenomenon.

Anyway, these are simply my opinions on this matter.  Was just curious as to why you might think this seems to be such a problem for one political party primarily.  Gov. Pence put on a excellent example where he was stuck between two answers.  I suppose one can understand a politician having to be this coy but folks in a softball forum?  Why is it similar there too?   I just can't figure it out but, that said, sorry I went on so long.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #169 
mikec and CoachB - As I wrap up our exchange on this matter, let me close with this.  If either of you had responded to my specific example and openly agreed a baker had a right to deny the sale of the cake in the display case to a gay couple, (as EG did), basically concluding bakers should have a right not to bake cakes for gay weddings period, I would have respected your right to have an opinion, disagreed with your conclusion, and simply moved on.  However, if you would have opened up on my example and said in this instance this baker should have been required to sell this display cake to the gay couple, we would have had a basis for negotiation and I think we could have ultimately come to an agreement on this whole controversy.  I would have then asked where would you like to draw the line and negotiated accordingly, (this is a debate forum and I'm taking the role of those who have to ultimately decide these matters).  Unfortunately, we couldn't even determine if we agreed or disagreed on the lowest basic premise of this particular issue.  Who knows, maybe next time.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,375
Reply with quote  #170 
"I'm not sure it's about honesty or about this rabbit hole theory some you like to describe, but it sure is an odd phenomenon."

Too many are saying it and have been saying it for awhile, for it to be that odd. #oddduck #25wordsorless #wordy

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,689
Reply with quote  #171 

Did I miss the protests, outrage, marches, and condemnation of these bakeries?  Are gay people coming unglued and shutting these poor people down, like they did the pizza place?

Is there some sort of double standard that I'm missing?

Or, do gay people only hate Christians?

As far as I know, there is no Christian country openly executing or jailing people for being gay.  Are there any Islamic ones?

I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, but something seems slightly amiss to me.  Maybe one of our hyper-tolerant liberals can explain to me why there are not, as I type, all out protests and outrage in Michigan at this very moment.


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,689
Reply with quote  #172 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
mikec and CoachB - As I wrap up our exchange on this matter, let me close with this.  If either of you had responded to my specific example and openly agreed a baker had a right to deny the sale of the cake in the display case to a gay couple, (as EG did), basically concluding bakers should have a right not to bake cakes for gay weddings period, I would have respected your right to have an opinion, disagreed with your conclusion, and simply moved on.  However, if you would have opened up on my example and said in this instance this baker should have been required to sell this display cake to the gay couple, we would have had a basis for negotiation and I think we could have ultimately come to an agreement on this whole controversy.  I would have then asked where would you like to draw the line and negotiated accordingly, (this is a debate forum and I'm taking the role of those who have to ultimately decide these matters).  Unfortunately, we couldn't even determine if we agreed or disagreed on the lowest basic premise of this particular issue.  Who knows, maybe next time.


To be honest, not that I owe you an explanation, but I have been out of town all week, working like 18 hour days, and have not had the time to read through all of your posts, much less respond to any of them. 

I did notice that you mentioned my name a few times, and said some things that you find intelligent, but are actually pretty condescending, like the above post.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't notice anyone commenting on how gentlemanly this week's insults are.   Wrap them in a bow with flowers, and it's all good.

And, FWIW - I've told you before that I generally will not play "Dewey's hyptothetical mind games", so carry on.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,689
Reply with quote  #173 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachB25
Dewey, I want to make this clear.  I am not judging you nor any gay person.  That will be done, according to my religious beliefs, by a higher power. 


Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Because your hypotheticals don't matter. 


CoachB and mikec - This is not about being judgmental or putting two men on top of a cake.  I know very little about religion and I know nothing about who may be subject to eternal damnation. 


As I said, I haven't read everything here in the past few days.

I did notice this, though, and I was wondering why it was insinuated that I said anything about eternal damnation?

Our country is going to hell, that is clear.  But, I don't remember crucifying anyone because they are gay. 

Further, it is not my job to determine anyone's piety, salvation, or anything else.  I struggle enough with those issues as they apply to my own life to tell anyone how to live theirs.

However, it is absolutely clear that discrimination against Christians is completely allowed in this country.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #174 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Because your hypotheticals don't matter. 
You're trying to split hairs.  In the real world, that isn't the way it works.


mikec - I have no doubt there have been occasions where gay people got married at the local courthouse, stopped and picked up a cake, and celebrated at home with friends.  I can see where someone had a small ceremony and then somebody stopped and rented tables and chairs for a celebration with friends.  Heck, I can see gays marrying in city hall and somebody picking up six or eight pizzas for a backyard wedding reception.  I can think of many scenarios where business owners might have the opportunity to refuse their products or services once it's determined a gay wedding celebration is taking place.  Unfortunately, you didn't want to address any of these examples.  More unfortunately, when I try to turn the conversation from "every gay hates Christians" to "what's fair and what isn't fair from your perspective", the accusation of condescension returns.  It's become an easy accusation to make, an accusation that's never substantiated, and an accusation I'll be subject to forever.  If you don't want the challenge of an opponent's debate, simply accuse them of some kind of bad behavior.

I understand your preference is to freely question if gays hate Christians, or to wrongly state discrimination against Christians is completely allowed in this Country, without any interference whatsoever.  However, I have a hard time letting such insinuations go unchallenged and if I have to be called condescending because of it, so be it.  Now carry on with your campaign and please know I'll show up and disagree if and when I feel compelled to do so.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,375
Reply with quote  #175 
"please know I'll show up and disagree if and when I feel compelled to do so."

Uh-oh, sounds grimacing

But,but,but....
"As I wrap up our exchange on this matter, let me close with this."

#flipflop

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,375
Reply with quote  #176 
Embedded image permalink
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,375
Reply with quote  #177 
Embedded image permalink
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,689
Reply with quote  #178 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Because your hypotheticals don't matter. 
You're trying to split hairs.  In the real world, that isn't the way it works.


mikec - I have no doubt there have been occasions where gay people got married at the local courthouse, stopped and picked up a cake, and celebrated at home with friends.  I can see where someone had a small ceremony and then somebody stopped and rented tables and chairs for a celebration with friends.  What a crock.  Prove it.


Heck, I can see gays marrying in city hall and somebody picking up six or eight pizzas for a backyard wedding reception.  This is also relative BS.  If someone is "swinging by" to pick up a few pizzas for an impromptu wedding ceremony (which is outrageous BS, BTW), why would they feel compelled to walk in announce to the world that is what they are doing?

I can think of many scenarios where business owners might have the opportunity to refuse their products or services once it's determined a gay wedding celebration is taking place.  Unfortunately, you didn't want to address any of these examples.  That's because this stuff is silly.  Wedding cakes are bought on a drive-by basis.  "Hey, let's throw a reception, and drive around to some cake shops and see if we can find one with a wedding cake on the shelf".  Come on - even you must see how silly that scenario is.

More unfortunately, when I try to turn the conversation from "every gay hates Christians" to "what's fair and what isn't fair from your perspective",  I didn't say everyone hates Christians, just militant gay activists.

the accusation of condescension returns.  It's become an easy accusation to make, an accusation that's never substantiated, and an accusation I'll be subject to forever.  If you don't want the challenge of an opponent's debate, simply accuse them of some kind of bad behavior.  Why don't you re-read your post that I said this about.

I understand your preference is to freely question if gays hate Christians, or to wrongly state discrimination against Christians is completely allowed in this Country, without any interference whatsoever.  Evidently, Muslims can discriminate against gays - no problem.  Why the difference?


However, I have a hard time letting such insinuations go unchallenged and if I have to be called condescending because of it, so be it.  You have the victim card down pretty good for someone not in an aggrieved class.   Don't be condescending, and I won't say it.  I only point it out because you cry so much about lack of civility.  Insults are insults, regardless of how they're wrapped.


Now carry on with your campaign and please know I'll show up and disagree if and when I feel compelled to do so.  I don't think I have any particular campaign.  Mostly, I just respond to folks when I have time.  That's not much of a campaign.


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,689
Reply with quote  #179 
Something has actually become clear to me after reading Dewey's last several posts, which is actually a bit of an epiphany for me.

This marriage issue is at the heart of some of this debate.  Honestly, outside of this forum, I don't know very many people (only 1 I can think of actually) who don't believe in God.

This seems to be the disconnect.  I, evidently wrongly, assumed that pretty much everyone believes in God, because everyone that I know does.  I now realize that there are folks who don't.  Therefore, they don't see the problem with this marriage issue.

This is a pretty strange realization actually.

See, I believe that marriage is ordained and blessed by God.  I could care less what sex, age, or race you are - if there is no God, there is no marriage.  There is a civil union or contract.

The problem, then, might be that the state picked up the religious term, and imbued it with rights and responsibilities.  Really, in the law, there should not be marriage.  There should only be legal unions, because the law can not determine if someone believes in God or not.

I now understand that there are some of you who could not grasp that concept, because you don't believe in God.

I thought everyone believed in God.  The idea of not believing in God is too foreign to me to rationalize, but so be it.

The question is - how do these reconcile? 

It seems that, for reasons that I don't understand, gripping tightly to this word "marriage" is important to some of you non-believers.  Why is that?  Why do you care?  Is "marriage" just a legal term to you?  If so, why can't some substitute legal term do the job?

You are free not to believe, but you shouldn't practice your non-belief in a house of God, which is what I believe marriage to be.

It seems that the law should be religion-neutral, and should therefore only refer to civil unions.  Some people may choose to have those unions be recognized as marriages by virtue of the beliefs of the participants.

That way, we're all equal, and free to do what we want, and we don't have to hear any more about stupid cakes sitting on shelves.


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #180 
mikec - You are free to whatever beliefs you may have. I doubt any member has anything but respect for your religious beliefs. This is about business practices and/or discrimination, according to my perspective. Can a rental company say no to a gay couple who wants to rent table and chairs for their wedding? I say we can't allow this practice in our society and some like you disagree with me. This Country will settle this issue like we settle all issues. Now I'm walking up to my doubleheader. Have a good day.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: