How is this even a topic in 2015?

I want TAX reform!

I want to know why Veterans don't receive fast and efficient medical treatment like federal and state prisoners?

You know, it'd actually be a pretty brilliant move if Republicans just 180'd on this issue, wholesale agreeing with gay marriage and rescinded support for that legislation. You want to beat Hillary, there's one way.

(04-15-2015 02:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You know, it'd actually be a pretty brilliant move if Republicans just 180'd on this issue, wholesale agreeing with gay marriage and rescinded support for that legislation. You want to beat Hillary, there's one way.

That wouldn't change a thing.

The MSM would simply drum up another reason to hate Republicans. My guess would be they'd dial up the sexism/racism card.

Then, here you would come, saying "If only the Republicans would pull a 180 on XYZ issue, they'd really have something."

"If you give a mouse a cookie..."

(04-15-2015 02:54 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 02:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You know, it'd actually be a pretty brilliant move if Republicans just 180'd on this issue, wholesale agreeing with gay marriage and rescinded support for that legislation. You want to beat Hillary, there's one way.

That wouldn't change a thing.

The MSM would simply drum up another reason to hate Republicans. My guess would be they'd dial up the sexism/racism card.

Then, here you would come, saying "If only the Republicans would pull a 180 on XYZ issue, they'd really have something."

"If you give a mouse a cookie..."

Why is there still this myth of the Main stream media when Fox News dominates cable news, and Rush dominates the radio.

(04-15-2015 02:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 12:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I disagree with his position. A business person should not discriminate based on religious beliefs.

So a Jewish baker MUST decorate a cake celebrating Hitler's birthday or Auschwitz? A Muslim baker can't decline to put a depiction of Muhammad on their cake?

The test of your convictions is to have it used for a situation you disagree with... otherwise, you're merely enforcing a set of popular opinions... and opinions change... and yours won't always be popular.

This is a serious question. Think of something that offends you and put it in this context and defend your opinion that religious beliefs bar you from being offended/not joining. If you aren't religious, then put in something about race or sex and defend your stance.

No, these are functionally different examples. This law doesn't force you to go out of your way to cater to people of every religion/creed/ideology/etc, but if you're a baker, you can't not sell a loaf of bread to someone because they're gay. Similarly, if you make wedding cakes, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service because it's going to a gay wedding. You have every right to refuse making whatever absurd example you want to create involving jews/nazis/Westboro/etc and cakes, which require specialized attention and overtly prejudicial statements/images, but you cannot change what you sell/offer to customers based on this.

If a gay couple wants to buy a wedding cake, the same one you've made 25 times for heterosexual couples, you shouldn't be allowed to throw your hands up and act like "Well, now making this same exact cake is against my religion".

You're not listening.

Nobody has suggested that. Putting 2 grooms on it doesn't make it exactly the same cake any more than putting 'death to gays' is the same as one that says happy birthday. Rubio's language SPECIFICALLY opens the door to exactly what you've described. No, he doesn't go quite that far, but he certainly is in the ballpark.

Repeating what he said in the article AGAIN
'it's immoral and wrong to say, I'm not going to allow someone who's gay or lesbian to use my restaurant, stay in my hotel, or provide photography service to them because they're gay. ' and 'I don't believe it's right for a florist to say, I'm not going to provide you flowers because you're gay.'

Providing 'pastry' services because they are gay is a natural agreement with that comment. You have therefore made an assumption inconsistent with what he actually said... and you're calling it 'different' because of your assumption and not because of what he said.

As to it being different...

I don't know you or what you value. I asked you to think of a situation where despite the fact that you disagree with the message, you WOULD force someone to engage in it. You ignored this and instead thought of ways to change what Rubio said.

How about this one...
The Westboro Baptist Church is pretty universally disliked. They want to hold a rally where they 'protest' dead soldiers. You're a vet yourself and you own a printing company near the local base and your father/brother/son/sister/mother is one of those dead soldiers. You don't support their project and you don't want to provide your printing services to them. They aren't gay, and you aren't disagreeing with them on religious grounds or any other 'protected' reason... so even THIS example isn't as strong as one that HAS a protection, but I don't need it. You've printed millions of rally signs before, but NEVER one that said 'soldiers deserve to die'.

Do you support the government FORCING you to print whatever they want you to print on those signs?

It seems to me there are three options.
1) say no and get sued and under YOUR interpretation, lose.
2) agree to print the signs, but only ones that say things you've said before
3) do the job and 'suck it up' if other customers near the base understandably now don't want to use you because of what you did.

Stop arguing with my hypotheticals and come up with one of your own. I don't care HOW unlikely it is, it merely has to be a situation where you would be okay if the government forced you to do something that you were ABSOLUTELY against... especially when such an easy and 'fair' alternative existed. (#2 above)

If you can't think of one, then tell me something that you are 100% against 'in your soul' and I'll come up with the scenario for you. No matter how unlikely my scenario is, if you could honestly say that you'd support the government making you do it, THEN you would be being fair.

(04-15-2015 02:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You know, it'd actually be a pretty brilliant move if Republicans just 180'd on this issue, wholesale agreeing with gay marriage and rescinded support for that legislation. You want to beat Hillary, there's one way.

Dems aren't going to vote against Hillary no matter the stance... and none will 'not' vote because Hillary isn't different on this issue.... and there is a portion of the Republican party that would vote 3rd party or not at all if they 180'd, just like there is a portion of the left that would if they 180'd. Of the middle, this isn't a big issue for many of them... so while they might care about this at the margin (if you ask them in a poll) it doesn't outweigh other issues to them. you'd have to attract more of the middle than you lose of the right (or left) by making such a switch, and I don't buy for a minute that it's that important to that much of the middle (such that it would outweigh all of the other differences between Hillary and 'the right'.

Quote:You're not listening.

Nobody has suggested that. Putting 2 grooms on it doesn't make it exactly the same cake any more than putting 'death to gays' is the same as one that says happy birthday. Rubio's language SPECIFICALLY opens the door to exactly what you've described. No, he doesn't go quite that far, but he certainly is in the ballpark.

Repeating what he said in the article AGAIN
'it's immoral and wrong to say, I'm not going to allow someone who's gay or lesbian to use my restaurant, stay in my hotel, or provide photography service to them because they're gay. ' and 'I don't believe it's right for a florist to say, I'm not going to provide you flowers because you're gay.'

Providing 'pastry' services because they are gay is a natural agreement with that comment. You have therefore made an assumption inconsistent with what he actually said... and you're calling it 'different' because of your assumption and not because of what he said.

As to it being different...

I don't know you or what you value. I asked you to think of a situation where despite the fact that you disagree with the message, you WOULD force someone to engage in it. You ignored this and instead thought of ways to change what Rubio said.

How about this one...
The Westboro Baptist Church is pretty universally disliked. They want to hold a rally where they 'protest' dead soldiers. You're a vet yourself and you own a printing company near the local base and your father/brother/son/sister/mother is one of those dead soldiers. You don't support their project and you don't want to provide your printing services to them. They aren't gay, and you aren't disagreeing with them on religious grounds or any other 'protected' reason... so even THIS example isn't as strong as one that HAS a protection, but I don't need it. You've printed millions of rally signs before, but NEVER one that said 'soldiers deserve to die'.

Do you support the government FORCING you to print whatever they want you to print on those signs?

It seems to me there are three options.
1) say no and get sued and under YOUR interpretation, lose.
2) agree to print the signs, but only ones that say things you've said before
3) do the job and 'suck it up' if other customers near the base understandably now don't want to use you because of what you did.

Stop arguing with my hypotheticals and come up with one of your own. I don't care HOW unlikely it is, it merely has to be a situation where you would be okay if the government forced you to do something that you were ABSOLUTELY against... especially when such an easy and 'fair' alternative existed. (#2 above)

If you can't think of one, then tell me something that you are 100% against 'in your soul' and I'll come up with the scenario for you. No matter how unlikely my scenario is, if you could honestly say that you'd support the government making you do it, THEN you would be being fair.

No, you're not listening. You're allowed to tell WBC to f*ck off because the reason you're not making the signs has nothing to do with their being a protected class. It's literally the reason for the creation of those classes. We understand that people should have the right to refuse service for A LOT of reasons, but we as a society have decided that these specific reasons are not ok. Your hypotheticals are nonsense, and you need to stop trying to formulate them as if they're compelling. They aren't.

(04-15-2015 01:12 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Now we're hand wringing over gay illegal immigrants. What would this constitute? .001% of .01%?

Keep it up lefties, concentrating on the issues that effect the American people.

More mind-numbing distraction.

It's not the "lefties" who have issues with "the gays" or the "illegals".

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you're not listening. You're allowed to tell WBC to f*ck off because the reason you're not making the signs has nothing to do with their being a protected class. It's literally the reason for the creation of those classes. We understand that people should have the right to refuse service for A LOT of reasons, but we as a society have decided that these specific reasons are not ok. Your hypotheticals are nonsense, and you need to stop trying to formulate them as if they're compelling. They aren't.

Ok... Last time... because if you really don't understand it, you're not smart enough to argue with. I think you are.

You tell me how refusing to make signs for a protest by an obviously protected group (religion) is any different than refusing to make a cake for a gay couple (sexual orientation).

Serious question... Do you honestly think that you're not allowed to discriminate based on your own religious beliefs? I mean, that's literally the only difference in those two... which side lies the 'protected group'... and religion is protected in all 50 states and the Feds yet you seem to think it's okay to discriminate based on your OR their religious beliefs.

That just defies any logic whatsoever... and there are numerous hypotheticals to represent that difference (the Muslim or Jewish baker)


By refusing to engage in any hypothetical (even though the entire debate over the Pizza parlour and the Indiana? law was entirely a hypothetical) You're essentially implying that your position on gay marriage has absolutely no similarity to anything else in your imagination. That you can't possibly think of a situation where you'd accept that someone has the right to discriminate against something you personally disagree with.

I think you're smarter than that and merely don't like what it would say about your opinions.

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you're not listening.

If he was he woulda back tracked a long time ago.

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Your hypotheticals are nonsense,

What else can you expect? It's the only argument his kind have.

(04-16-2015 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you're not listening.

If he was he woulda back tracked a long time ago.

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Your hypotheticals are nonsense,

What else can you expect? It's the only argument his kind have.

All you do is come in and co-sign things that people who are smarter than you say. Do you have anything to offer other than that?

(04-16-2015 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  you're not smart enough to argue with.

And you wonder why I get so annoyed with you guys lately...

Your other statements make that comment seem not as bad, but the very mention of that line continues to confuse the heck out of me as to where the line is and is not drawn on here.

(04-16-2015 02:17 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you're not listening.

If he was he woulda back tracked a long time ago.

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Your hypotheticals are nonsense,

What else can you expect? It's the only argument his kind have.

All you do is come in and co-sign things that people who are smarter than you say. Do you have anything to offer other than that?

I've seen two guys make the exact same jest at each other. Both are claiming the other isn't listening and implying that they are missing the point.

After reading both of their posts I've come to the conclusion that for one poster that argument is valid, for the other it isn't. I am just making it clear who IMO that person is.

There is nothing more frustrating with the type poster who is telling you that your (perfectly valid) points are not valid and refuses to even consider them. So I felt compelled to help UCF out when he is getting stonewalled like that.

(04-16-2015 02:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  you're not smart enough to argue with.

And you wonder why I get so annoyed with you guys lately...

Your other statements make that comment seem not as bad, but the very mention of that line continues to confuse the heck out of me as to where the line is and is not drawn on here.

The bolded answers your question, John.

Context makes all the difference in the world and it is why only people with an agenda to mislead take quotes out of context. Yes, you could easily take what I said out of context and imply something I didn't say, but why would you do that as it doesn't represent what I actually said.

I'm responsible for what I say.... not what you can potentially edit it to APPEAR I said.

It's okay to use the word ass if you're talking about a donkey.

(04-16-2015 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you're not listening. You're allowed to tell WBC to f*ck off because the reason you're not making the signs has nothing to do with their being a protected class. It's literally the reason for the creation of those classes. We understand that people should have the right to refuse service for A LOT of reasons, but we as a society have decided that these specific reasons are not ok. Your hypotheticals are nonsense, and you need to stop trying to formulate them as if they're compelling. They aren't.

Ok... Last time... because if you really don't understand it, you're not smart enough to argue with. I think you are.

You tell me how refusing to make signs for a protest by an obviously protected group (religion) is any different than refusing to make a cake for a gay couple (sexual orientation).

Serious question... Do you honestly think that you're not allowed to discriminate based on your own religious beliefs? I mean, that's literally the only difference in those two... which side lies the 'protected group'... and religion is protected in all 50 states and the Feds yet you seem to think it's okay to discriminate based on your OR their religious beliefs.

That just defies any logic whatsoever... and there are numerous hypotheticals to represent that difference (the Muslim or Jewish baker)


By refusing to engage in any hypothetical (even though the entire debate over the Pizza parlour and the Indiana? law was entirely a hypothetical) You're essentially implying that your position on gay marriage has absolutely no similarity to anything else in your imagination. That you can't possibly think of a situation where you'd accept that someone has the right to discriminate against something you personally disagree with.

I think you're smarter than that and merely don't like what it would say about your opinions.

Ham, he won't answer ANY of your hypotheticals because his answer in real life would be "I can discriminate if it's against something I believe, but you can't do the reverse".

Remember, he's in his 20s, so he knows everything - just ask him, he'll tell you.

(04-16-2015 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you're not listening.

If he was he woulda back tracked a long time ago.

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Your hypotheticals are nonsense,

What else can you expect? It's the only argument his kind have.

Who are "his kind" and do you have anything to add, or just cheerleading yet again?

(04-16-2015 02:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 02:17 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you're not listening.

If he was he woulda back tracked a long time ago.

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Your hypotheticals are nonsense,

What else can you expect? It's the only argument his kind have.

All you do is come in and co-sign things that people who are smarter than you say. Do you have anything to offer other than that?

I've seen two guys make the exact same jest at each other. Both are claiming the other isn't listening and implying that they are missing the point.

After reading both of their posts I've come to the conclusion that for one poster that argument is valid, for the other it isn't. I am just making it clear who IMO that person is.

There is nothing more frustrating with the type poster who is telling you that your (perfectly valid) points are not valid and refuses to even consider them. So I felt compelled to help UCF out when he is getting stonewalled like that.

Hadn't gotten this far, so you already answered the question. In other words, no. As usual.

(04-16-2015 02:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  After reading both of their posts I've come to the conclusion that for one poster that argument is valid, for the other it isn't. I am just making it clear who IMO that person is.

There is nothing more frustrating with the type poster who is telling you that your (perfectly valid) points are not valid and refuses to even consider them. So I felt compelled to help UCF out when he is getting stonewalled like that.

SInce the poster you seem to agree with hasn't responded to legitimate challenges to his claims...

(like how the Westboro Baptist Church isn't a protected class)

then all you are really saying is that you agree with his opinion... despite the fact that he apparently can't even remotely imagine a situation, no matter how far fetched where his interpretation would support something he disagrees with.

And the opinions of TWO people who are demonstrably wrong (you) or demonstrably avoiding reality (him) are not any more compelling than either opinion alone.

If you'd like to answer the questions I've posed to him, feel free to 'support' him when he's being challenged on his preposterous stretches of logic.... but a 'yeah, what he said' isn't a compelling argument.

(04-16-2015 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 10:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you're not listening. You're allowed to tell WBC to f*ck off because the reason you're not making the signs has nothing to do with their being a protected class. It's literally the reason for the creation of those classes. We understand that people should have the right to refuse service for A LOT of reasons, but we as a society have decided that these specific reasons are not ok. Your hypotheticals are nonsense, and you need to stop trying to formulate them as if they're compelling. They aren't.

Ok... Last time... because if you really don't understand it, you're not smart enough to argue with. I think you are.

You tell me how refusing to make signs for a protest by an obviously protected group (religion) is any different than refusing to make a cake for a gay couple (sexual orientation).

Serious question... Do you honestly think that you're not allowed to discriminate based on your own religious beliefs? I mean, that's literally the only difference in those two... which side lies the 'protected group'... and religion is protected in all 50 states and the Feds yet you seem to think it's okay to discriminate based on your OR their religious beliefs.

That just defies any logic whatsoever... and there are numerous hypotheticals to represent that difference (the Muslim or Jewish baker)


By refusing to engage in any hypothetical (even though the entire debate over the Pizza parlour and the Indiana? law was entirely a hypothetical) You're essentially implying that your position on gay marriage has absolutely no similarity to anything else in your imagination. That you can't possibly think of a situation where you'd accept that someone has the right to discriminate against something you personally disagree with.

I think you're smarter than that and merely don't like what it would say about your opinions.

Religion is not a valid excuse to discriminate against a protected class, it never has or should be. Your hypothetical is nonsense because you think having a religion grants you the rights to discriminate against other protected classes, when in reality, it just prevents you from discrimination. You might as well claim being a heterosexual grants you the ability to discriminate against women because, well, that's what heterosexuals want to be able to do. It's just not how the protected status works.

The idea that religion is some shield which protects your actions from the rule of law isn't really how it works. If you want to argue that sexuality shouldn't be a protected class, go ahead. But the argument that because your protected class might believe in things that support discriminating against other protected classes, you should just ignore the entire concept of protected classes is just dumb and wholly uncompelling.

(04-16-2015 06:21 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Religion is not a valid excuse to discriminate against a protected class, it never has or should be. Your hypothetical is nonsense because you think having a religion grants you the rights to discriminate against other protected classes, when in reality, it just prevents you from discrimination. You might as well claim being a heterosexual grants you the ability to discriminate against women because, well, that's what heterosexuals want to be able to do. It's just not how the protected status works.

The idea that religion is some shield which protects your actions from the rule of law isn't really how it works. If you want to argue that sexuality shouldn't be a protected class, go ahead. But the argument that because your protected class might believe in things that support discriminating against other protected classes, you should just ignore the entire concept of protected classes is just dumb and wholly uncompelling.

Both Rubio and I have repeatedly said that you aren't allowed to discriminate against people because they are gay. I don't know if you're saying this because you don't understand, or merely because you can't argue with what I (or Rubio for that matter) HAVE said so you have to change it.

However, you ABSOLUTELY are allowed to discriminate against those groups based on what they ask you to do for them.... just as you say you're allowed to tell the WBC to f-off.

As much as I hate them, members of the WBC ARE a protected religious group and can't be denied service at your bakery or print shop any more than a gay person can be. That is an absolute and undeniable fact.

However, if they ask you to print something (or decorate something) that you find offensive you can. Here is where the debate is... and ONLY where the debate is.

You agree with this when I'm talking about the WBC, but you disagree when I'm talking about gays.

That is why I've engaged in these hypotheticals, because your opinion is entirely inconsistent. I believe you've chosen to avoid them because you know it is.

Protected groups involve sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin AND religion in every state, and sexual orientation or identity in many. If you CAN do something against ANY of those groups (the wbc) then you can do exactly the same thing against any of the others. If you can't do it against gays, then you can't do it against the religious either (or Hispanics or old people or Jews or the disabled)

It's one or the other.... and ONLY one or the other.

Decorating a cake is no different than printing a sign.

So if you're allowed to tell the WBC to f-off, NOT because of their religion, but because of what they have asked you to do for them... then you're allowed to tell people of color or women or disabled people or Jews to f-off for exactly the same reasons.

The obvious measure is whether you have done EXACTLY what they have asked you to do for anyone else... Down to the words or pictures on the sign or cake. Hence as I have said and Rubio implied... you MUST bake them a cake, but you don't have to put 2 grooms on it (unless you've put 2 grooms on before).

And no, if your reason for denying the WBC their signs is because you're a Tao-ist and you don't believe in their 'negativity'... in other words, you disagree based on your own religious beliefs rather than some OTHER moral or ethical compass... that doesn't somehow remove your right to decline their request.

One or the other. Not both.