[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[/quote]
Not even surprised anymore. “Slippery Slope fallacies!”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Ha!
Good for them.[/quote]
They are just searching for a higher power.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is rich:
Colorado double standard
duh, this has nothing to do with equality and rights.
I’d like to take a moment to post my appreciation for this forum. I had an exchange on facebook today which reinforces yet again why I don’t talk politics on there. I made the most overtly hypothetical, obviously imaginary, Fred Phelps like hardware store owner (similar to one made here a few pages back) to try to illustrate the difference between religiously objecting to photographing a wedding and denying service to gay people because they are gay.
I was summarily taken to be agreeing with said imaginary bigot. Importantly, this was in a topical thread not a status update, and it was with an attorney who, I found out as he was calling me out, happened to be gay.
I’m very glad we have an area here that we can battle without having to resort to shit like what I had to deal with.
On another note, even though it was labeled as hypothetical, my future Presidential aspirations are now clearly permanently destroyed. 
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is rich:
Colorado double standard
duh, this has nothing to do with equality and rights. [/quote]
Can’t tell whether you agree with your statement or whether it was sarcastic.
My own point of view is that this individual case really ISN’T about equality and rights. It’s not discriminatory to refuse to make an insulting cake. There’s enough legitimate double standards going on without trying to make this bigger than it is.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’d like to take a moment to post my appreciation for this forum. I had an exchange on facebook today which reinforces yet again why I don’t talk politics on there. I made the most overtly hypothetical, obviously imaginary, Fred Phelps like hardware store owner (similar to one made here a few pages back) to try to illustrate the difference between religiously objecting to photographing a wedding and denying service to gay people because they are gay.
I was summarily taken to be agreeing with said imaginary bigot. Importantly, this was in a topical thread not a status update, and it was with an attorney who, I found out as he was calling me out, happened to be gay.
I’m very glad we have an area here that we can battle without having to resort to shit like what I had to deal with.
On another note, even though it was labeled as hypothetical, my future Presidential aspirations are now clearly permanently destroyed. :P[/quote]
What a fag.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is rich:
Colorado double standard
duh, this has nothing to do with equality and rights. [/quote]
Can’t tell whether you agree with your statement or whether it was sarcastic.
My own point of view is that this individual case really ISN’T about equality and rights. It’s not discriminatory to refuse to make an insulting cake. There’s enough legitimate double standards going on without trying to make this bigger than it is.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re not sure about, but ill say that this whole issue is about taking down the majority. People are going out of their way to find known Christian stores, request services which are blatantly offensive, with the sole intention of taking that store down. It has nothing to do with equality or civil rights, and everything to do with people seeking out conflict to further the leftest agenda.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’d like to take a moment to post my appreciation for this forum. I had an exchange on facebook today which reinforces yet again why I don’t talk politics on there. I made the most overtly hypothetical, obviously imaginary, Fred Phelps like hardware store owner (similar to one made here a few pages back) to try to illustrate the difference between religiously objecting to photographing a wedding and denying service to gay people because they are gay.
I was summarily taken to be agreeing with said imaginary bigot. Importantly, this was in a topical thread not a status update, and it was with an attorney who, I found out as he was calling me out, happened to be gay.
I’m very glad we have an area here that we can battle without having to resort to shit like what I had to deal with.
On another note, even though it was labeled as hypothetical, my future Presidential aspirations are now clearly permanently destroyed. :P[/quote]
What a fag.[/quote]
LOL!
Social equality will only exist when I can call both a gay person and a straight person a fag without either one feeling like I just victimized them.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Social equality will only exist when I can call both a gay person and a straight person a fag without either one feeling like I just victimized them.[/quote]
Nathan Lane seems to be able to pull this off. Maybe you need to work on your delivery.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Social equality will only exist when I can call both a gay person and a straight person a fag without either one feeling like I just victimized them.[/quote]
Nathan Lane seems to be able to pull this off. Maybe you need to work on your delivery. [/quote]
Social equality will only exist when I don’t need to work on my delivery. Besides, Nathan Lane is as queer as a three-dollar bill, so it doesn’t quite have the same effect. It’ll be a great day for social justice when Sean Penn refers to someone as a wetback swish and no one of Hispanic descent or homosexual leanings becomes offended.
The way it is now, attempts at social equality only serve to further stigmatize minorities.
“Oh, you can make fun of people but only some people. You have to treat racial and sexual minorities differently.” How is demanding that minorities be treated differently than everyone else get us any closer to equality?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We’re talking about universal, inherent, rights.
If you are “free” to take away someone else’s freedom, neither of you are actually free. And if no one is free, how do you know who the rulers are?[/quote]
Are you free if you lack the freedom to take away someone else’s freedom?
I think I figured out why I intentionally place “attempt to” whenever I try to put into words my belief regarding any “universal” rights.
IIRC, I typically write - “We are free to attempt whatever we want”. Something like that.
Because you are correct. If we actually have the freedom to take away another’s freedom,then no one can be free. But we don’t have that freedom. We don’t actually have any freedom. At least, not in the sense that we are just free to take things, or do certain things.
We are, however, free to attempt to take away another’s freedom. Doesn’t mean we’ll succeed though, or that we’re born with any natural innate right to take away another’s freedom or anything.
This is probably the best answer I can give to the dilemma you raise. Beyond that, I personally think your reasoning suffers from circular logic. You assume that we must be free, otherwise we wouldn’t be capable of Independence and all it entails. And in order to be free we must not be able to take away another’s freedom, otherwise we wouldn’t actually be free. Therefore harming others, particularly taking away their ability to be free, cannot be something innate.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What you are talking about isn’t freedom. It’s elevated status conferred upon you, and you alone, because you are “free” to take away the freedom of others.
How is universally applied criteria arbitrary, yet your examples of “some people” having more leeway to do things, but others not, not arbitrary?[/quote]
I’m not sure where you got the sense that I’m talking about “some people”, or how the freedom I talked about previously is limited to a select few. Mind pointing them out?
[quote]magick wrote:
A post about Natural Rights[/quote]
Let’s try this a different way okay? I’m going to assume your name is Todd for the sake of my example. But before we get to why I need to assume your name is Todd, answer this: If rights aren’t inherent, where do they come from?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
A post about Natural Rights[/quote]
Let’s try this a different way okay? I’m going to assume your name is Todd for the sake of my example. But before we get to why I need to assume your name is Todd, answer this: If rights aren’t inherent, where do they come from?
[/quote]
This. Rights are either natural or they don’t exist.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
answer this: If rights aren’t inherent, where do they come from?
[/quote]
This assumes that rights MUST exist, and I have a big problem with that assumption.
Why must rights exist? What goes wrong if rights do not exist? What if we are not actually “Free” in the manner that you define us to be? What happens then?