Jump to content


Photo

LGBT Rights (Part 4)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
837 replies to this topic

#41 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 30 June 2015 - 11:41 PM


It was a wedding cake they where making. They make wedding cakes all of the time.

 

They are not a machine. They are people providing goods and services.  And they have the right to express their values in that capacity.  This has clearly been upheld in many other cases without it being seen as discrimination.  I do not have to support people in doing something I philosophically disagree with and nobody else does either because in general that's what freedom is.

 


It doesn't matter what you think of a person. If you offer a service you must offer it to everyone. Not only that but it does matter what they do with your service unless it is going to harm someone.

 

The person who will be harmed is the person making the cake because they will feel like they have not obeyed their own set of standards.  That sort of thing sticks with you.  If you offer a service, you are free to offer it to anyone you want to or don't want to. It may not make for good business, but you are allowed to do it.  And you should be allowed to do it. And it isn't discrimination if you decide you aren't going to do so because it conflicts with an important part of your identity.  Especially if it is not a life saving practice and even then maybe. A wedding cake is so incredibly inane and easy to get other places.  The only reason to make a stink over a wedding cake is because you have an axe to grind with religious types and have no conception of what freedom of identity practice should be. 

 


If a black person owns a hotel he cannot refuse membership to the KKK unless he have reason to think they might burn his hotel down or kill people in it. If a Christan sculptor is ask to make a Jesus sculptor knowing that those people are going to blow it up he cannot refuse.

 

Do you have anything to base this on or are you simply stating what you feel it should be? Because if that's all this is, then great.  You do that.  But unless you find other evidence, it seems unlikely anyone will follow those rules. 

 


t does not matter what people are going to do with the item they brought. It is none of your business. Those guys make cakes for a living. They also make wedding cakes for a living. It is none of their business what is the wedding cake is use for make it and STFU.

 

And therefore their name and skill is on that cake. It means they are endorsing the activity in some small way.  Most wedding cakes are highly intricate and specialized.  It is a creative act.


tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#42 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 12:38 AM

It was a wedding cake they where making. They make wedding cakes all of the time.

 

 

It doesn't matter what you think of a person. If you offer a service you must offer it to everyone. Not only that but it does matter what they do with your service unless it is going to harm someone.

 

 

If a black person owns a hotel he cannot refuse membership to the KKK unless he have reason to think they might burn his hotel down or kill people in it. If a Christan sculptor is ask to make a Jesus sculptor knowing that those people are going to blow it up he cannot refuse.

 

It does not matter what people are going to do with the item they brought. It is none of your business. Those guys make cakes for a living. They also make wedding cakes for a living. It is none of their business what is the wedding cake is use for make it and STFU.

There is literally a sign on most restaurants saying they have the right to refuse service to anyone. That means a gay couple, a black guy, a white guy, a slob, an attractive woman. Anyone. 

 

Who cares if a gay couple wants a cake? Refuse service if he doesn't like gays. Or if he doesn't want to make the cake. Or if they disgust him. It's his store and he has the right. 

 

You are a socialist/communist. Why not go live in Russia or China if you think people should be forced to service all customers? 


"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#43 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,185 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 01 July 2015 - 08:53 AM

@Passingby

 

Well now.

 

This discussion brings back fond memories, doesn't it?


  • Misty and Passingby like this

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#44 theonlygeezy

theonlygeezy

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 01 July 2015 - 05:54 PM

 

Spoiler

 

   Choice to serve, especially in that of a small business, should not be questioned, scrutinized, or interfered with by the government. Intent, in most cases, cannot be proven, therefore the breaking of this principle can eventually lead to a direct threat to Democracy. The Democratic process actually allows for private discrimination. Conversely, it also allows boycotts, protests, & the refusal of the consumer, thereby achieving the same result that is expected of common erroneous lawsuits.

 

If you must reply, reply to @Passingby or @Misty. They have consistently correct answers on the topic and I might not be back ....lol



#45 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 01 July 2015 - 06:18 PM


This discussion brings back fond memories, doesn't it?

 

Fonder memories for those of us who could be bothered to read the past parts!


tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#46 Goddess Nike

Goddess Nike

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts
  • LocationIn Despair

Posted 01 July 2015 - 07:35 PM

Marriage is not now nor has it ever been, in the eyes of the church or state, an institution based upon sexual orientation.


I'm not sure that's what you even meant to say, if it's not based upon sexual orientation than it can't be claimed to be intrinsicly tied to heterosexuality and they would have no exclusive rights to it. Not that this even matters since marriage itself predates both the church and the state (which I'm assuming you're talking about the US here) by quite a bit and isn't based in any one thing.
 

The most basic principle & foundation of marriage has been broken, resulting in a complete transformation rather than the questionably intended, amendment. In other words, this Supreme Court ruling has created an entire new entity which shares a common word.


Even if I did agree with this, the fact that I don't see marriage as anything sacred or immutable means that I find the change neither unforetunate nor significant. From what I remember you're deeply religious and because of that you have a bit of motivated reasoning to feel a certain way about both homosexuality and the concept of marriage. I don't have any strong reason to feel any particular way about either (as much as I like Paul of Tarsus, he's no voice of authority for me more than any other person with an opinion on the matter) so I'm usually pretty objective when taking these things in to consideration. Since gay marriage has been legal in my state for awhile now (long prior to the SCOTUS decision) this "complete transformation" as you called it has ended up being pretty trivial. It's not like transformations are inherently bad anyway, I actually find marriage from a historical and traditional view slightly off putting.
As far as the last bit, neither rules nor laws are immutable and definitions are fluid. I only worry about changes if they're both significant and negative, which is not the case here since to me this is at worst neutral and possibly a positive for those it directly effects.
Anyway it's good to see you back I guess, even if only temporarily.



2h7297a.jpg

Pro Scientia Atque Sapientia


#47 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,991 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 01 July 2015 - 08:15 PM

We might as well bring back Jim crow laws. If that baker can said no to gays than why can't whites say no to blacks, or blacks to white. American is over 70% christian and if one christian can tell a gay they do not want their business what about the rest? How do you think they well feel if it was the other away around. If a gay business owner tell the christian couple no and most of the country is gay where are they suppose to turn?

 

 

Also if people want to talk about religion rights, where is the out cry for not being about to stone someone on the holy day. Hell, those Muslims that attack those people in Texas because they draw their prophet should have the right, to kill them. They went against their religion.

 

Also the meaning of marriage have been changing since the we develop it.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#48 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 01 July 2015 - 08:21 PM

We might as well bring back Jim crow laws. If that baker can said no to gays than why can't whites say no to blacks, or blacks to white. American is over 70% christian and if one christian can tell a gay they do not want their business what about the rest? How do you think they well feel if it was the other away around. If a gay business owner tell the christian couple no and most of the country is gay where are they suppose to turn?

 

 

Also if people want to talk about religion rights, where is the out cry for not being about to stone someone on the holy day. Hell, those Muslims that attack those people in Texas because they draw their prophet should have the right, to kill them. They went against their religion.

 

Also the meaning of marriage have been changing since the we develop it.

 

Jim crow was flawed because the whole idea of "segregation" while still being in the same country and same vicinity was doomed to fail from the start. 

 

No one's religion tells them to discriminate on the basis of race. And not all christians are discriminating against lgbt customers. Those whose religion is an important part of their identity are not selling wedding cakes to gay couples or marrying gay couples because their beliefs prohibit gay marriage, their beliefs do not enforce discrimination. 

 

Your analogy doesn't apply. 

 

Not sure if this fourth point is hyperbole, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  There is a difference between participating in gay marriage, and killing someone. 

 

You mean, certain interest groups and their masters have been forcing people to accept their meaning of marriage. 



#49 Goddess Nike

Goddess Nike

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts
  • LocationIn Despair

Posted 01 July 2015 - 08:32 PM

What I suggest is being argued by others here, is that gay marriage is going to set a precedent for other unusual forms of marriage.


It's not really a good argument though, it's speculative and irrelevant and rather than based in genuine concern it's usually used as a fear mongering tactic in lieu of direct criticism of homosexual relationships themselves. First of all precedent alone guarantees you nothing, proponents of any other form of unusual marriage would have to prove they have anything at all to do with homosexuality beyond the vague and subjective distinction of being unusual.  After many decades of intensive research it's now known that homosexuality is a normal, healthy, and harmless aspect of human sexuality and it's not something that was granted a priori. In fact it was quite the opposite since it was up against deep rooted society wide negative assumptions about homosexuals moral character, mental capacity,  and even sanity.  It isn't just mere precedence homosexual relationships stand on their own merits as something equal in measure heterosexual ones.
Not every form of unusal relationship can make the same claim definitively. In order to be taken very seriously they would have to stand on their own merits under intense controversy and after detailed long term academic scruntiny from various professions. For any of them after all of that, if they're proven to be pragmatic, healthy, and harmless to both society at large as well as harmless to the individuals involved then we would need to reconsider whatever taboo we have the makes us think them unusual. However if it in fact turns out there is something truly wrong with them then whatever that something is would be distinction enough to differentiate it from homosexuality. People can advocate whatever type of marriage they want honestly but how seriously they're taken and how successful they are depends on how much merit their argument holds in and of itself, not how unusual it is relative to homosexuality.
 


  • Tale likes this


2h7297a.jpg

Pro Scientia Atque Sapientia


#50 ryuzaki07

ryuzaki07

    N00b

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • LocationOuter Haven

Posted 01 July 2015 - 08:59 PM


After many decades of intensive research it's now known that homosexuality is a normal, healthy, and harmless aspect of human sexuality and it's not something that was granted a priori. In fact it was quite the opposite since it was up against deep rooted society wide negative assumptions about homosexuals moral character, mental capacity,  and even sanity.  It isn't just mere precedence homosexual relationships stand on their own merits as something equal in measure heterosexual ones.

Now come on. Homosexuality is only seen as acceptable because its more common than pedophilia or necrophilia. Whats the line between a homosexual and a pedophile? Its merely a cultural factor to accept one and demonize the other. Truth is that is positions were inversed, there would be decades of research that would "prove" that pedophilia is totally a normal and healthy behavior. Its all just culture. Its hipocrisy to accept one and deny the other. 


Posted Image


#51 theonlygeezy

theonlygeezy

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:06 PM

I'm not sure that's what you even meant to say, if it's not based upon sexual orientation than it can't be claimed to be intrinsicly tied to heterosexuality and they would have no exclusive rights to it. Not that this even matters since marriage itself predates both the church and the state (which I'm assuming you're talking about the US here) by quite a bit and isn't based in any one thing.

 

I'm glad you responded today. That's exactly what I meant to say. Historically, marriage was used to form alliances, procreation etc. Spiritually, it is a covenant of commitment, trust, & the bond that is believed to have been ordained by God himself. Secularly and religiously, it is intrinsically tied to people who live a heterosexual "lifestyle." I only mentioned this to prove the notion wrong that marriage is tied to orientation. Sexuality is fluid, meaning it can & does change. Now, in order to decide that marriage is discrimination, first you must decide what that definition actually is. The definition of marriage in America, where I'm from, cannot be determined based on any other thing than its meaning at the country's inception. That includes its religious connotations. Either way you look at it, marriage was between a man & a woman no matter what that reason may have been. None of these reasons included sexual orientation. Even though homosexuality itself has been continually persecuted throughout the years, holds no basis to whether homosexual people have been discriminated against.

 

Even if I did agree with this, the fact that I don't see marriage as anything sacred or immutable means that I find the change neither unforetunate nor significant. From what I remember you're deeply religious and because of that you have a bit of motivated reasoning to feel a certain way about both homosexuality and the concept of marriage. I don't have any strong reason to feel any particular way about either (as much as I like Paul of Tarsus, he's no voice of authority for me more than any other person with an opinion on the matter) so I'm usually pretty objective when taking these things in to consideration. Since gay marriage has been legal in my state for awhile now (long prior to the SCOTUS decision) this "complete transformation" as you called it has ended up being pretty trivial. It's not like transformations are inherently bad anyway, I actually find marriage from a historical and traditional view slightly off putting.
As far as the last bit, neither rules nor laws are immutable and definitions are fluid. I only worry about changes if they're both significant and negative, which is not the case here since to me this is at worst neutral and possibly a positive for those it directly effects.
Anyway it's good to see you back I guess, even if only temporarily.

 

 I honestly have an inherent understanding of the spiritual principles of the bible, though I'm not very religious at all. I have no religious agenda. Just an affinity for the spiritual(meaning the culmination of our thoughts, feelings, & emotions through the journey of a lifetime). Because of this I understand every point of view down to the most simplistic emotional level, before I comment on it. None of this matters anyway since the words I speak are the only thing that matter here. Truth is the only thing I seek. It was most definitely a transformation, as "man & man" or "woman & woman" are the complete antithesis of one of its only concrete rules. Calling it trivial is only seeing one side of the conflict. "Definitions are fluid" - In the eyes of the church, absolutely not.

Thanks.



#52 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,005 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:07 PM

Now come on. Homosexuality is only seen as acceptable because its more common than pedophilia or necrophilia. Whats the line between a homosexual and a pedophile? Its merely a cultural factor to accept one and demonize the other. Truth is that is positions were inversed, there would be decades of research that would "prove" that pedophilia is totally a normal and healthy behavior. Its all just culture. Its hipocrisy to accept one and deny the other.


right. just go around thousands of years of research that suggests that children's brains are underdeveloped and incapable of making decisions for themselves at a young and early age. your argument might work if our culture was a rape culture, or a culture where it was socially acceptable to force your sexuality upon someone else even though they're incapable of saying no let alone understanding why they need to say no.

Edited by retroluffy13, 01 July 2015 - 09:09 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#53 ryuzaki07

ryuzaki07

    N00b

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • LocationOuter Haven

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:18 PM

right. just go around thousands of years of research that suggests that children's brains are underdeveloped and incapable of making decisions for themselves at a young and early age. your argument might work if our culture was a rape culture, or a culture where it was socially acceptable to force your sexuality upon someone else even though they're incapable of saying no let alone understanding why they need to say no.

Thousands of years? Really, youre trying to sell that? 

 

You want research? You know what child soldiers are? You know, children who massacre tribes in africa like it was nothing. Maybe youre reffering to priviledged children who never had to make a decision beyond what flavor they want for their ice cream. Of course these kids wouldnt know how to make decisions, they never had to. Innocence is cultural, not biological. 


Posted Image


#54 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,005 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:23 PM

Thousands of years? Really, youre trying to sell that? 
 
You want research? You know what child soldiers are? You know, children who massacre tribes in africa like it was nothing. Maybe youre reffering to priviledged children who never had to make a decision beyond what flavor they want for their ice cream. Of course these kids wouldnt know how to make decisions, they never had to. Innocence is cultural, not biological.

you mean the little brainwashed pirates that go around killing for a war they never had a choice of being apart of? the kids who were forcibly taken from their loving families and homes and forced to be what some high strung assholes want them to be? yeah. those kids have all the freedom in the world and ill never turn out exactly how those jerks raise them to be.
 

Thousands of years? Really, youre trying to sell that?

and yes ima go with thousands of years because for all of recorded histry, kids have been second class citizenz. this is never disputed. what is desputed is the age.

the point is that bilgicly a child is mostly a blank slate and can be molded to become mostly anything you want it to be. to force your will upon such a human who will ne day enjoy the same privilege of thought as you or I is is the wrong part.

Edited by retroluffy13, 01 July 2015 - 09:25 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#55 ryuzaki07

ryuzaki07

    N00b

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • LocationOuter Haven

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:33 PM


you mean the little brainwashed pirates that go around killing for a war they never had a choice of being apart of? the kids who were forcibly taken from their loving families and homes and forced to be what some high strung assholes want them to be? yeah. those kids have all the freedom in the world and ill never turn out exactly how those jerks raise them to be.

Looks to me that youre the one whos been braiwashed. These kids were raised in a different enviroment, under different rules. Theyre soldiers, that have to make incredibly difficult decisions on the spot. It doesnt matter how they were raised, a kid could never fight a war because their brains are not developed yet, is what youre saying. Youre just deciding that the people who educate children to be soldiers are worse than the ones who educate them to be innocent. Your own culture blinds you to the fact that a child is just as capable of decision making as any adult, if the enviroment demands for it. 

 

Its all cultural.


Posted Image


#56 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,005 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:41 PM

Looks to me that youre the one whos been braiwashed. These kids were raised in a different enviroment, under different rules. Theyre soldiers, that have to make incredibly difficult decisions on the spot. It doesnt matter how they were raised, a kid could never fight a war because their brains are not developed yet, is what youre saying. Youre just deciding that the people who educate children to be soldiers are worse than the ones who educate them to be innocent. Your own culture blinds you to the fact that a child is just as capable of decision making as any adult, if the enviroment demands for it. 
 
Its all cultural.

I never said that what we do to children is right either. americans tend t treat them as completely incapable of making their own descisions which isn't the case once a kid is past the age of fifteen or so. theyre still socially imiture at that point but at least they understand enough about the world and its intentions to make theyre own descisions.

show me one example of a child turning out completely and utterly the exact opposite of what it was raised to be. show me an example when a child soldier grew up and decided to become a banker. then ill agree with you that children are capable of making theyre own decisions and aren't just mindless little robots you can program to be relatively anything.

Edited by retroluffy13, 01 July 2015 - 09:42 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#57 Goddess Nike

Goddess Nike

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts
  • LocationIn Despair

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:57 PM

Now come on. Homosexuality is only seen as acceptable because its more common than pedophilia or necrophilia. Whats the line between a homosexual and a pedophile?


You're kind of just making this up, but as long as you realize that I don't even care. We don't even know the prevalance of various paraphilias in order to compare their frequency to homosexuality so to make any claim based on which is more common than the other isn't even conjecture it's an outright lie. I don't know what you mean by where's the line between them, there is no line as they have no relationship with each other...at all.
Nevermind that my post explicty allowed for the possibility of any paraphilia to be normalized if it's found to be healthy and harmless but of all possible examples that is one of the more intensively studied paraphilic disorders over the decades and the viewpoint in the medical and scientific communities remains the same as of now so your claim has literally no basis.
 



2h7297a.jpg

Pro Scientia Atque Sapientia


#58 ryuzaki07

ryuzaki07

    N00b

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • LocationOuter Haven

Posted 01 July 2015 - 10:04 PM


show me one example of a child turning out completely and utterly the exact opposite of what it was raised to be. show me an example when a child soldier grew up and decided to become a banker. then ill agree with you that children are capable of making theyre own decisions and aren't just mindless little robots you can program to be relatively anything.

One? There are thousands of examples to choose from. I mean, gay people are an example, those kids were raised to be attracted the opposite gender, werent they? What about a kid who was raised to be a doctor and grew up to be a junkie? 


Posted Image


#59 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,005 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 10:12 PM

One? There are thousands of examples to choose from. I mean, gay people are an example, those kids were raised to be attracted the opposite gender, werent they? What about a kid who was raised to be a doctor and grew up to be a junkie?

I mean specificly a child soldier who turned out to not be a cold blooded killer later in life. give me one example.

Edited by retroluffy13, 01 July 2015 - 10:13 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#60 Ganderath

Ganderath

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 938 posts
  • LocationSerbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

   2    2   

Posted 01 July 2015 - 10:20 PM

I mean specificly a child soldier who turned out to not be a cold blooded killer later in life. give me one example.

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Ishmael_Beah


9uDrnRm.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users