"I want to go into a store and get served just like everyone else" is NOT special treatment. "I don't want some salesperson or some baker or some hotel clerk or some manager pass judgement on my life and say I can't be served" is NOT special treatment.
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve, or not serve any person for any reason. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve any person, or not, for any reason whatsoever. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
A privately owned store is expecting the secular bank system to process its checks and credit cards, have the secular police come and deal with any thefts or other disturbances, have the secular newpapers run its ads, regardless of what the people in those entities think about the beliefs of the owner of the store. The "able to serve any person, or not, for any reason whatsoever" ship sailed in 1963. And we are a better country because of it.
Newsflash, we already knew it wasn't a Christian nation. But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves.
This question can easily be turned towards the lgbt movement as well: what makes you think you deserve special treatment?
Simple. If you walk into my bakery and ask me to bake a cake for your Christian wedding, the law says I can't refuse to do so because of your religion. So if I'm being forced to bake your Christian wedding cake, you can be forced to bake my big fat gay wedding cake. Get it?
A privately owned store is expecting the secular bank system to process its checks and credit cards, have the secular police come and deal with any thefts or other disturbances, have the secular newpapers run its ads, regardless of what the people in those entities think about the beliefs of the owner of the store. The "able to serve any person, or not, for any reason whatsoever" ship sailed in 1963. And we are a better country because of it.
Yes, the Constitution has been at war with political reality and case law for many decades and much of that case law is clearly in violation of the supreme law of the land, to the benefit of government, political parties and special interests. The Constitution cannot defend itself, so if the people allow individual rights to be violated without repercussions, what do you think the result will be?
Yes, the Constitution has been at war with political reality and case law for many decades and much of that case law is clearly in violation of the supreme law of the land, to the benefit of government, political parties and special interests.
Point me to the section of the law that says "thou shalt not baketh the pizza for men that lie with each others or those of different colors of skins" and you can try to make the claim that your ability to exercise your beliefs is being violated. And no, the laws that say you must murder those people doesn't count - you can try to murder gay people and claim you're following your religious beliefs (and enjoy your time in prison for it) but that's not the same as no pizza weddings.
Point me to the section of the law that says "thou shalt not baketh the pizza for men that lie with each others or those of different colors of skins" and you can try to make the claim that your ability to exercise your beliefs is being violated. And no, the laws that say you must murder those people doesn't count - you can try to murder gay people and claim you're following your religious beliefs (and enjoy your time in prison for it) but that's not the same as no pizza weddings.
The Federal government is restricted from a whole host of things laid out in the Constitution that individuals are not. Those powers not granted to the Federal government are left to the States and the People. The Constitution wasn't created to defend and protect groups, it was created to protect and defend individuals.
The Federal government is restricted from a host of things laid out in the Constitution that individuals are not.
You're demanding a VERY wide definition of "free exercise of religion" to make the claim in this case - far less wide than the definition of other rights used in Roe v. Wade which I'm going to make a wild guess and say you oppose.
You're demanding a VERY wide definition of "free exercise of religion" to make the claim in this case - far less wide than the definition of other rights used in Roe v. Wade which I'm going to make a wild guess and say you oppose.
If you need my opinion on abortion to reinforce your own opinion, I think it's a matter for the woman to decide, however I don't believe the Federal government should be involved in funding any of it. I'm not pro-life or pro-choice. I'm pro-individual rights.
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve, or not serve any person for any reason. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
"A privately owned store" means a store not owned by a government entity. Best Buy IS (for example) "a privately owned store! So is Joe's Coffee Shop and Stella's Cupcakery.
Stores and services are places of public accommodation, and therefore are NOT permitted to discriminate. By your definition, a taxicab driver or lunch counter operator or a florist could refuse to accept a request for service because the prospective customer is black or oriental or appears to have a sexual preference the operator of the business doesn't approve of. No - That is unlawful discrimination!
It's also funny how people forget the "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause of that Amendment.
Your right to exercise your religion ends where it infringes upon your neighbor's right to practice a different one or none at all. Religious arguments were used in the US decades ago to justify discrimination against black people, and centuries earlier to enslave them. What's the difference between a pizza restaurant denying service to gays and a coffee shop denying service to blacks?
Actually, we are a Christian nation.
the people who came over here wanted religious freedom, the founding documents are filled with references to a Creator...
Religious freedom is not the right to impose your religion on others, and belief in a deity is not synonymous with Christianity.
But if you want to bring up the founding fathers, by all means...
George Washington:
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.”
John Adams:
"The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
Thomas Jefferson:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
James Madison:
“During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
Benjamin Franklin:
“The Infinite Father expects or requires no worship or praise from us.”
Thomas Paine:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.”
Carly, a hypocrite is running on a platform of efficient government after you exemplified the opposite in your leadership of HP and then left with a 25 million dollar parachute.
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve, or not serve any person for any reason. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
Private businesses benefit for govt tax write offs just like everyone else. If they're willing to forfeit all externalities of running their bigot.com then I'd agree with you.
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve, or not serve any person for any reason. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
The problem with this line of thinking is that one can't always assume that other options will be available. We'd be rolling back the clock over half a century and totally spitting on the legacy of civil riots pioneers if we allowed any business, corporate or mom and pop, to discriminate. We might not all like each other or believe the same things, but we can - and must! - be cordial and tolerant of each other's differences in the public sphere. That's what a civilized society does.
As much as I miss Steve (for many reasons, including separating his personal politics from Apple) and think Tim is doing a good job as CEO, Carly is correct.
As much as I miss Steve (for many reasons, including separating his personal politics from Apple) and think Tim is doing a good job as CEO, Carly is correct.
The suggestion that Tim Cook can't criticize a bad law in Indiana because of worse laws in Iran is an ideal example of "The Perfect Is The Enemy of the Good"
Love how biased this article is written. At least we know what side of the tree AI falls out on. But my question is why doesn't Tim write about the stoning and killing of Gays in SA and the lack of rights for women? Cause it's all about the dollar, that's why. Don't care what spectrum you fall out on. It is hypocritical to opine for that law and stay silent on the human rights abuses in China and around the world.
As much as I miss Steve (for many reasons, including separating his personal politics from Apple) and think Tim is doing a good job as CEO, Carly is correct.
Newsflash, we already knew it wasn't a Christian nation. But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves.
This question can easily be turned towards the lgbt movement as well: what makes you think you deserve special treatment?
Simple. If you walk into my bakery and ask me to bake a cake for your Christian wedding, the law says I can't refuse to do so because of your religion. So if I'm being forced to bake your Christian wedding cake, you can be forced to bake my big fat gay wedding cake. Get it?
That sums it up quite well. Any religious rights supporters care to try to dismantle that analogy?
Gay rights is the most pressing issue in America? Well, I didn't realize that the country was no longer in a depression, with a failing infrastructure, massive unemployment, a gargantuan national debt, failing entitlement programs, a defunct education system, a huge illegal immigration problem, and a largely ignorant populace. Clearly, 'gay rights' trumps all those. :roll eyes:
1. Depression - It isn't and hasn't been since 1939.
2. Infrastructure is government funded. Cut government funding and there's less infrastructure funding.
3. Unemployment - lower than Jan 2009
4. Education system - Government funded. Less money is less funding.
5. Illegal immigration - actually there is a "deficit" of immigration as more "illegals" leave than come..but worth noting a strong correlation to immigration - legal or otherwise - to strong positive economic results.
6. Ignorant populace - on that, I wholeheartedly agree
Gay rights are the current civil rights. Everyone knows it. Well. Almost everyone. Fortunately - and to keep it "Apple focused" - in the words of Steve Jobs:
"Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."
Youth and the young aren't important because they discard the old - including bigotries. They're important because they bring the future.
Comments
"I want to go into a store and get served just like everyone else" is NOT special treatment. "I don't want some salesperson or some baker or some hotel clerk or some manager pass judgement on my life and say I can't be served" is NOT special treatment.
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve, or not serve any person for any reason. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve any person, or not, for any reason whatsoever. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
A privately owned store is expecting the secular bank system to process its checks and credit cards, have the secular police come and deal with any thefts or other disturbances, have the secular newpapers run its ads, regardless of what the people in those entities think about the beliefs of the owner of the store. The "able to serve any person, or not, for any reason whatsoever" ship sailed in 1963. And we are a better country because of it.
Simple. If you walk into my bakery and ask me to bake a cake for your Christian wedding, the law says I can't refuse to do so because of your religion. So if I'm being forced to bake your Christian wedding cake, you can be forced to bake my big fat gay wedding cake. Get it?
A privately owned store is expecting the secular bank system to process its checks and credit cards, have the secular police come and deal with any thefts or other disturbances, have the secular newpapers run its ads, regardless of what the people in those entities think about the beliefs of the owner of the store. The "able to serve any person, or not, for any reason whatsoever" ship sailed in 1963. And we are a better country because of it.
Yes, the Constitution has been at war with political reality and case law for many decades and much of that case law is clearly in violation of the supreme law of the land, to the benefit of government, political parties and special interests. The Constitution cannot defend itself, so if the people allow individual rights to be violated without repercussions, what do you think the result will be?
Yes, the Constitution has been at war with political reality and case law for many decades and much of that case law is clearly in violation of the supreme law of the land, to the benefit of government, political parties and special interests.
Point me to the section of the law that says "thou shalt not baketh the pizza for men that lie with each others or those of different colors of skins" and you can try to make the claim that your ability to exercise your beliefs is being violated. And no, the laws that say you must murder those people doesn't count - you can try to murder gay people and claim you're following your religious beliefs (and enjoy your time in prison for it) but that's not the same as no pizza weddings.
Point me to the section of the law that says "thou shalt not baketh the pizza for men that lie with each others or those of different colors of skins" and you can try to make the claim that your ability to exercise your beliefs is being violated. And no, the laws that say you must murder those people doesn't count - you can try to murder gay people and claim you're following your religious beliefs (and enjoy your time in prison for it) but that's not the same as no pizza weddings.
The Federal government is restricted from a whole host of things laid out in the Constitution that individuals are not. Those powers not granted to the Federal government are left to the States and the People. The Constitution wasn't created to defend and protect groups, it was created to protect and defend individuals.
The Federal government is restricted from a host of things laid out in the Constitution that individuals are not.
You're demanding a VERY wide definition of "free exercise of religion" to make the claim in this case - far less wide than the definition of other rights used in Roe v. Wade which I'm going to make a wild guess and say you oppose.
You're demanding a VERY wide definition of "free exercise of religion" to make the claim in this case - far less wide than the definition of other rights used in Roe v. Wade which I'm going to make a wild guess and say you oppose.
If you need my opinion on abortion to reinforce your own opinion, I think it's a matter for the woman to decide, however I don't believe the Federal government should be involved in funding any of it. I'm not pro-life or pro-choice. I'm pro-individual rights.
A privately owned store (versus a Best Buy, for example) can and should be able to serve, or not serve any person for any reason. The bad businesses don't last and the bigots and jerks get noticed pretty fast.
"A privately owned store" means a store not owned by a government entity. Best Buy IS (for example) "a privately owned store! So is Joe's Coffee Shop and Stella's Cupcakery.
Stores and services are places of public accommodation, and therefore are NOT permitted to discriminate. By your definition, a taxicab driver or lunch counter operator or a florist could refuse to accept a request for service because the prospective customer is black or oriental or appears to have a sexual preference the operator of the business doesn't approve of. No - That is unlawful discrimination!
It's also funny how people forget the "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause of that Amendment.
Your right to exercise your religion ends where it infringes upon your neighbor's right to practice a different one or none at all. Religious arguments were used in the US decades ago to justify discrimination against black people, and centuries earlier to enslave them. What's the difference between a pizza restaurant denying service to gays and a coffee shop denying service to blacks?
Actually, we are a Christian nation.
the people who came over here wanted religious freedom, the founding documents are filled with references to a Creator...
Religious freedom is not the right to impose your religion on others, and belief in a deity is not synonymous with Christianity.
But if you want to bring up the founding fathers, by all means...
George Washington:
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.”
John Adams:
"The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
Thomas Jefferson:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
James Madison:
“During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
Benjamin Franklin:
“The Infinite Father expects or requires no worship or praise from us.”
Thomas Paine:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.”
The problem with this line of thinking is that one can't always assume that other options will be available. We'd be rolling back the clock over half a century and totally spitting on the legacy of civil riots pioneers if we allowed any business, corporate or mom and pop, to discriminate. We might not all like each other or believe the same things, but we can - and must! - be cordial and tolerant of each other's differences in the public sphere. That's what a civilized society does.
As much as I miss Steve (for many reasons, including separating his personal politics from Apple) and think Tim is doing a good job as CEO, Carly is correct.
The suggestion that Tim Cook can't criticize a bad law in Indiana because of worse laws in Iran is an ideal example of "The Perfect Is The Enemy of the Good"
Love how biased this article is written. At least we know what side of the tree AI falls out on. But my question is why doesn't Tim write about the stoning and killing of Gays in SA and the lack of rights for women? Cause it's all about the dollar, that's why. Don't care what spectrum you fall out on. It is hypocritical to opine for that law and stay silent on the human rights abuses in China and around the world.
So your solution....do nothing.
As much as I miss Steve (for many reasons, including separating his personal politics from Apple) and think Tim is doing a good job as CEO, Carly is correct.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2224198/data-center/apple-and-steve-jobs-have-long-been-champions-for-gay-rights.html
Newsflash, we already knew it wasn't a Christian nation. But it was at one point based on Christian principles because the founding fathers saw merit in them, whether they were Christian or not themselves.
This question can easily be turned towards the lgbt movement as well: what makes you think you deserve special treatment?
Simple. If you walk into my bakery and ask me to bake a cake for your Christian wedding, the law says I can't refuse to do so because of your religion. So if I'm being forced to bake your Christian wedding cake, you can be forced to bake my big fat gay wedding cake. Get it?
That sums it up quite well. Any religious rights supporters care to try to dismantle that analogy?
1. Depression - It isn't and hasn't been since 1939.
2. Infrastructure is government funded. Cut government funding and there's less infrastructure funding.
3. Unemployment - lower than Jan 2009
4. Education system - Government funded. Less money is less funding.
5. Illegal immigration - actually there is a "deficit" of immigration as more "illegals" leave than come..but worth noting a strong correlation to immigration - legal or otherwise - to strong positive economic results.
6. Ignorant populace - on that, I wholeheartedly agree
Gay rights are the current civil rights. Everyone knows it. Well. Almost everyone. Fortunately - and to keep it "Apple focused" - in the words of Steve Jobs:
"Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."
Youth and the young aren't important because they discard the old - including bigotries. They're important because they bring the future.