190
191

The intolerant ... (i.imgur.com)

Clatsopvincit omnia veritas が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Athegnostistian -6 ポイント-5 ポイント  (42子コメント)

Umm… so requiring shop owners to not discriminate against LGBTs is the same thing as forcing them to convert to being LGBTs themselves??

[–]woopigchewie 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If I went into a shop wearing a "Gay sex = AIDS" shirt and was turned away of service, would that be discriminatory? Isn't is my right to openly express my religious and political opinion, no matter whose feelings it hurts? Isn't the right of that shop owner to turn down my business because they find my shirt offensive to their religious or political opinions? It's not discriminatory if the shop owner is betraying his religious conscience by doing business with someone.

[–]fatfaggotfuck69 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (33子コメント)

It is forcing people to do something against their conscience.

You see it as discrimination, but I'm not sure that is an accurate description given the fact that people are targeting religious bakeries and forcing them to do things they are uncomfortable doing.

What if it was an arranged marriage in Mexico between a 60 year old man and a 12 year old girl? And they wanted your bakery to do the cake. Would you object? Would you be discriminating if you did? Is discrimination a bad thing in that context?

Edit: I didn't down vote anyone. And the people outraged that I am comparing homosexuality to pedophilia are missing the point. For many cultures arranged marriages with very young girls are the norm. You are claiming moral superiority with nothing to back it up.

[–]_aint 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

just for the record, your comparing what in most countries is consider pedophilia with being gay. dont really think those two are the same things.

also, religion was used to discriminate and segregate blacks in the south during the 1950s, do you think this is a proper use of discrimination? and if not, what makes that different than today?

[–]fatfaggotfuck69 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't think pedophilia is the same as being gay, either. But in many societies, 12 is legal and an arranged marriage to a 12 year old is acceptable.

Why do you get to say that one thing is wrong, and the other is right? It seems like cultural and moral imperialism to me. I agree, 12 is too young of an age to be married or arranged to be married. But don't pretend there is some sort of universal moral code in your favor that says homosexuality is fine and young marriage is wrong. You object to the young marriage because you've been raised to believe it is wrong. If you were raised in Mexico you might support it completely, and that is why it is an appropriate comparison.

As for discrimination against blacks, I think it is wrong. But I'm not sure we need the government to force businesses to cater to people they don't want to. If it was my bakery I would have shut up and made the cake and taken their money, I don't agree with what the bakery did although I understand their reasons for doing so and support them for taking a stand. The gay couple had several alternatives, they were not being hurt in any way by being denied a cake at that particular location. And I don't think the government should be pointing a gun to someone's head and forcing them to make cakes.

[–]_aint -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

no but i can give you pretty good scientific reasons for why young marriage and young sex are bad including psychological issues and inability to make a real choice (i would also note at this point that the lowest marriageable age in all western countries is 15). the scientific reasons for not allowing gay marriage are non-existent, even if your going to argue the inability to reproduce (which we now can do with science and in a world thats overpopulated as is, it probably isnt a good argument). so yes, i will "pretend" there is a difference between the two because to me there actually is one.

second, you didnt really answer my second question and i think it goes to what you describe as "moral imperialism." do you think the civil rights movement was moral imperialism? do you think that forcing de-segregation was a form of moral imperialism?

[–]fatfaggotfuck69 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm sure you could find a lot of scientific evidence that being gay is harmful, and maybe correlate higher STD and substance abuse rates.

You keep bringing up the civil rights movement for blacks as if it is the same. In fact, it is very different. Homosexuals are not a marginalized group, being denied basic rights like employment or schooling. They are overrepresented in the media, enjoy widespread public support, and on average enjoy equal or higher pay compared to the rest of the country. If the worst thing they have to deal with is choosing a different bakery, then I'm ok with that level of discrimination.

[–]LurkBot9000 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So what you're saying is that this is an issue of discrimination and that what makes it different from racial discrimination is that you are personally ok with it.

[–]fatfaggotfuck69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You would probably be ok with discrimination against NAMBLA, right? Or against the KKK? I think businesses should be allowed to serve who they want. If I owned a bakery I would serve whoever. But I think a bakery that doesn't want to serve gays, or blacks, or whites, or whoever should be allowed to do so.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just to clarify:

"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger"

[–]Athegnostistian -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That kind of argumentation sounds very similar to that of people who opposed the end of racial discrimination. What if these people feel uncomfortable making cakes for black people? Or, to make the analogy even more fitting, for interracial couples? Should they have the right to deny making a cake for an interracial couple?

What if it was an arranged marriage in Mexico between a 60 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

Not a fitting analogy. According to a very brief google research, this would be illegal in Mexico since the age of consent there is 16 and can only be lowered to 14 in Chihuahua in cases where the girl is already pregnant.

[–]Popular-Uprising-Libertarian Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a touchy subject and I abhor discrimination on the basis of anything that someone has no control over (yes even sexual orientation). While I wouldn't refuse service myself, I believe that individuals (not corporations) have the right to decide who they associate with and the right to hold whatever Neanderthal views that they want. In the case of small businesses that are closely-held, it is impossible to distinguish the beliefs of the corporation from the beliefs of the individual. Forcing the corporation to do something equates to forcing an individual to do it.

I understand and agree that this creates quite a problem. In the past, when laws and overall societal pressures made it impossible to get a necessary good or service due to systemic discrimination, I'd agree that such anti-discrimination laws were necessary for all businesses. That just isn't the case anymore in the US. First, a wedding cake is not a "necessary" item. Second, for every mom+pop "Christian" bakery that refuses to make a cake for a gay person, there are many more that don't care what the sexual orientation is of the person who spends money.

In the case of larger corporations that cannot be said to have one coherent morality, then I'm all for not alloing them to discriminate.

[–]fatfaggotfuck69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

From Wikipedia: The age of consent in Mexico is complex. Typically, Mexican states have a "primary" age of consent (which may be as low as 12), and sexual conduct with persons below that age is always illegal. Sexual relations between adults and teenagers under 18 are left in a legal gray area: laws against corruption of minors as well as estupro laws can be applied to such acts, at the discretion of the prosecution. These laws are situational and are subject to interpretation.

As for the comparison to the black civil rights movement, I addressed it in a different comment, but it boils down to black people being truly disadvantaged at the time, and not making a fuss about something stupid like baking a cake. Homosexuals are overrepresented in the media, enjoy huge popular support, the government is behind them and they are using government threats to coerce people into doing what they want. That is a completely different scenario than Rosa Parks being forced to sit in the back of the bus. Homosexuals have won, at this point they are being vindictive and bad winners.

[–]theriseofthenight -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Lets change shit up.

I own a bakery

My religious beliefs means i cant serve Christians for some reason

A christian couple walks into my shop wanting a weding cake, i refuse to serve them

According to you i would have the right to do this

do I?

[–]Popular-Uprising-Libertarian Conservative 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes.

In the same manner that a Jewish-owned bakery could refuse to serve a wedding cake with a swastika or a black-owned bakery could refuse to to serve a cake with the phrase "Enjoy your hanging and cross burning!"

I'm in IT. If I own my own company, should I be forced to build a website for a pornographer if I'm morally against pornography and don't want to expose myself to it?

[–]theriseofthenight 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well at least you're not a hypocrite.

[–]fatfaggotfuck69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, I would give zero shits.

[–]monkfisherr -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

What if it was an arranged marriage in Mexico between a 60 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

I would think the bakery would just call the cops. What you are discribing is illegal, even in Mexico.

Bakeries don't need to police anything. If a bakery in America, where the civil rights act actually exists and where the bakeries are being sued for violating it, was asked to make a cake for an underage bride they would be within their rights to call child protective services. They would not be discriminating against anyone based on age, religion, gender, race, etc. They would simply be reporting a crime.

You could remove the underage part and reask the question. What if two sets of, say, Indian parents came in and picked out a cake for an arranged marriage between their two adult children? Should a bakery be able to refuse because the baker believes that people shouldn't be coerced into marriage? I think you should just bake the f'ing cake if you want to run a bakery but the baker might have the right to refuse because it isn't discrimination based on a protected class but the parents might be able to justify that it is a part of their religious beliefs.

[–]fatfaggotfuck69 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The age of consent in Mexico is 12. Assume your bakery is in Mexico.

Bakeries don't need to be policing morality, but they shouldn't have to serve people they don't want to, either.

[–]monkfisherr -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Assume your bakery is in Mexico.

Then you don't have to worry about the civil rights laws of the US. The bakery can refuse to make the cake, and certainly refuse to make cakes for gays, as I am unaware that Mexico has public accommodation laws similar to the US.

I used 16 because third parties can bring a complaint for sex with someone under 16-18, which is how most statutory rape cases are handled in the US.

Weird that you are trying to make an analogy that imports US civil rights laws to Mexico, but not our statutory rape laws. I don't understand the analogy I guess. If you are in Mexico it is okay to refuse because there is no civil rights law. If you are in the US it is okay to refuse because there is a statutory rape law.

The is law society deciding and expressing what whether what an individual or corporate entity does is harming other and should be prohibited. The US has decided that marriage or sex under the age of 16 is harmful, arranged marriage is not harmful, and corporations discriminating against people based on race, gender, marital status, religion by for profit businesses is harmful. Some states have included other protected categories, such as sexual orientation. Mexico is a very different culture and has decided different things are harmful.

[–]fatfaggotfuck69 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

For me, the argument has always been about ethics rather than civil rights legislation. If the law says that businesses should be forced to serve people they are morally opposed to serving, then it is an unjust law. And that is the whole point of new legislation being proposed to make it ok to not serve someone just because they make a big media stink.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a discussion of ethics. You seemed to have missed that.

[–]simjanes2k -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sorry, I really cannot take you seriously with that username. It's just... wow.

I'm not even surprised.

[–]adamiam 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, it's not a matter of identity, a matter of ideology. It's being forced to agree, or at least to say you agree.

[–]zackodst -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Not really. It's being forced to tolerate.

[–]Popular-Uprising-Libertarian Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It can be argues that you are being forced to take affirmative action that constitutes a level of support for that action. The cake wasn't a blank cake that was sitting in the display case, it was a personalized cake that required the owners to use their talents to craft.

Would you also force a photographer to take pornographic pictures if he advertised his services as "immortalize any event"? Would you force a black carpenter to build a large cross so that it can be burned in a white supremest ritual?

[–]adamiam 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

In no meaningful sense would that be tolerance, that word is used so dogmatically. 'Tolerating' means not murdering, assaulting, harassing, which we have laws against already.

Should all churches be forced to marry gay people, even if they feel it is against their ideology to do so?

[–]last_minutiae 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And not even tolerate really. You can sell some one some flowers with out tolerating them. I'm sure these florists have sold to satanists without knowing. Who cares. Selling something to someone does not effect your beliefs or somehow legitimize theirs. This whole thing is so dumb.