Would you have told African-Americans in the 60s ‘Go to a different diner to order a damn sandwich’?
Yes he cannot be forced to provide a service against his faith, That one person will not make that wedding cake, that is far from denying a right. You seem to think that rights are things that they are not. You’re talking about Marriage an institution that requires a license. Look up the word “license”, at which point you should understand why licenses do not involve rights. They can’t a right cannot be licensed
Do you honestly think that’s a good analogy?
I don’t troll, so there’s no other reason I would have written it. You need never ask me such a question again.
Just curious I didn’t want to form an opinion without being certain you meant it, I see it as silly
Eye, hypothetical, ok? Let’s say your child wanted to date a white supremacist. Now, instead, they want to date an orthodox believing/practicing Catholic? Which would mean they believe the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Do you feel the same about both situations?
You’re going to have to be more explicit for me vis a vis how this is germane to what I wrote.
I wonder if Kavanaugh would sell a wedding cake to a gay couple 
1 Like
I’m just wondering how we all really feel about making these sort of comparisons. I’ve had people maintain me as a friend, despite comparing my beliefs about homosexuality to hating [insert race]. Yet, there must be some difference, as they don’t maintain white supremacists as friends.
I’m just wondering how workable the comparisons/analogies are. How much we really believe they’re similar.
But, for the record. I don’t have (or, at least didn’t) have much issue with laws about cakes and sandwiches. Wedding cakes though…
Well, he might indeed be hearing such a case.
Do you want the judiciary to rule on matters of behavior, or matters of thought? Personally, I’m far more comfortable with the notion of the court judging that which can be observed (read: behavior) rather than that which cannot (read: thought, one example of which is beliefs).
I’m just asking on a more personal level.
If you’re asking whether I myself am on good terms with persons who are pro-life, uncomfortable with the normalization of homosexuality, etc, the answer is yes.
There is hope for you and I yet! Our friendship will bloom!
You’re going to get upset with me, but I do have to ask this now. Do you maintain friendships with people who disapprove of the normalization of blacks, inter-racial dating, etc? .
But, seriously though. Doesn’t seem to be much else to say so far. Things seem in kind of a holding pattern punctuated by short bursts of new info.
No.
(But Wal-Mart DOES have some good Carrot Cake…and the ladies in the bakery and Deli also greet me by name in a “Norm-on-Cheers” kind of way…!)
I have to agree.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is a difference between these two statements:
A) I don’t believe God exists.
B) I believe God doesn’t exist.
This is admittedly an important distinction. The definition of the word believe may leave room for a person to simply not believe something without simultaneously believing the negative of that.
Consider the four statements about some assertion P. Assume that P must either be true or false (it cannot be both true and false, nor can it be neither true nor false):
W) I believe P.
X) I don’t believe P.
Y) I believe not P.
Z) I don’t believe not P.
Assuming that the truthfulness of P cannot be conclusively proven, and using the understanding of believe that you have suggested, a reasonable person might agree with W and Z, X and Y, or X and Z. Other options are not rational as you cannot rationally believe two mutually exclusive things, nor can you simultaneously believe and not believe something. Also, critically, you must either believe or not believe something.
Returning to the existence of God, let’s say that P is the assertion: “God exists.” The person who agrees with W and Z is obviously a theist. The person who agrees with X and Y is an atheist, but one who holds a belief about the absence of God.
You are claiming that the person who agrees with X and Z (does not believe in anything) is an atheist. However, this person:
–doesn’t believe that God exists.
–doesn’t believe that God doesn’t exist.
This person is as much a theist as he is an atheist.
In summary, a person either (A)believes that God doesn’t exist or (B) doesn’t believe that God doesn’t exist. The first holds beliefs about God. The second is hardly an Atheist.
Only the ones I am effectively forced to maintain by dint of the fact I am related to them (by blood or marriage).
Saying WM has good cake is like saying McDonald’s has good hamburgers–they really don’t, but repeated exposure tends to normalize their awfulness. (Sound familiar?) The challenge is to maintain one’s standards of normalcy in the face of such.
1 Like
Thank you, sir. Yeah, your experience seems common enough.
I’m no longer optimistic about that blossoming friendship.
1 Like