You're moving the goalposts. What rights of gays are threatened if a baker says, "I don't want to make that cake, please try the baker next door"?
In Indiana, none, because they don't posess equal rights in Indiana. It's a very convenient argument to be able to claim no rights are lost or threatened when they are legally second class citizens who had none to begin with.
All businesses discriminate, not least Apple.
Apple discriminates against the poor and the homeless.
You apparently weren't paying attention. Obama ended torture and warrentless wiretapping, as well as the illegal Iraq War. I, for one, don't believe killing Bin Laden was immoral- Pakistan was clearly not our ally in the WOT and was hiding OBL.
That's incorrect. Libertarians are pro-freedom and anti-violence and against the use of government to force people to do something they don't want to do.
Of COURSE it's shortsighted when people act irrationally when it comes to race, religion, etc., however as long as no one is attacked or hurt, people should be free to make dumb decisions that harm their own interests, and they should also suffer the consequences of such stupidity, including loss of business, bad online reviews, peaceful protests or shunning.
You're moving the goalposts. What rights of gays are threatened if a baker says, "I don't want to make that cake, please try the baker next door"?
Wow! I didn't realize that Indiana had so many bakeries that they're right next door to each other! I saw way more truck stops than bakeries when I was in IN, but it must have changed dramatically!
More to the point, the right to discriminate against an entire group or class of people should be illegal. If a bakery wants to hang a sign that says, " No Shirts, No Service, No Sinners", that is their right, but it needs to apply to all groups equally- gamblers, fornicators, adulterers, etc. We all paid for that public road to your establishment, we all paid for the police and the fire department, we all paid for the schools and the military, etc, etc.
A right to religious liberty is not absolute when it contradicts the U.S. Constitution treating all people equally or when it poses a public risk. A Muslim American woman cannot, for example, wear a hijab covering her face for a driver's license photo.
Wow! I didn't realize that Indiana had so many bakeries that they're right next door to each other! I saw way more truck stops than bakeries when I was in IN, but it must have changed dramatically!
More to the point, the right to discriminate against an entire group or class of people should be illegal. If a bakery wants to hang a sign that says, " No Shirts, No Service, No Sinners", that is their right, but it needs to apply to all groups equally- gamblers, fornicators, adulterers, etc. We all paid for that public road to your establishment, we all paid for the police and the fire department, we all paid for the schools and the military, etc, etc.
A right to religious liberty is not absolute when it contradicts the U.S. Constitution treating all people equally or when it poses a public risk. A Muslim American woman cannot, for example, wear a hijab covering her face for a driver's license photo.
The Constitution does not force individuals to treat people "equally", it limits the power of the Federal government, but it seems the negative consequences of not abiding by the Constitution are not severe enough because they are still doing a poor job of even that simple task. When was the last time you saw a Federal worker or politician face any consequences for violating the Constitution?
If a divorced and remarried abomination of a sinner wanted a wedding cake, would the baker also be condoning this immoral marriage?
If a Christian bakes a Bar/Bat Mitzvah cake, is the baker denying Jesus?
What about abusive relationships? If someone beats their spouse, the baker who made their cake somehow condoned it?
I guess I never realized the gravity of the baking profession and how he or she needs to research the quality of a relationship before condoning the marriage. I hope all bakers are doing their due diligence and working with therapists, when required, before they condone any marriage.
LOL... the point is, it's none of our business – not the feds, not the state government, not militant lefties – the reasons that goes on in a baker's head for wanting or not wanting to bake a particular cake for a particular individual on a particular date. All this law says is you can't sue the baker for discrimination in that case.
Why? Because even if you CAN sue a baker for not depicting two gays on a cake, it won't cure discrimination. It will make the lawyers rich and antagonize people against one another for no good reason. You clog the courts and make lawyers rich, when the homosexual just needs to walk a block over and buy a cake elsewhere.
If the baker is too unreasonable too often, his business will die. The market is RUTHLESS when dealing with idiots.
Libertarians and liberals both agree, refusing to bake a cake probably isn't rational, might even be discriminatory or bigoted. Where we differ is, you want big brother to police this, with the attendant SJWs, lawyers, and twitter feed hysterics, and I want the baker to be policed by the ravages of the marketplace. My way is more efficient at getting what we both want. Show me how it isn't?
LOL... the point is, it's none of our business – not the feds, not the state government, not militant lefties – the reasons that goes on in a baker's head for wanting or not wanting to bake a particular cake for a particular individual on a particular date. All this law says is you can't sue the baker for discrimination in that case.
Why? Because even if you CAN sue a baker for not depicting two gays on a cake, it won't cure discrimination. It will make the lawyers rich and antagonize people against one another for no good reason. You clog the courts and make lawyers rich, when the homosexual just needs to walk a block over and buy a cake elsewhere.
If the baker is too unreasonable too often, his business will die. The market is RUTHLESS when dealing with idiots.
Libertarians and liberals both agree, refusing to bake a cake probably isn't rational, might even be discriminatory or bigoted. Where we differ is, you want big brother to police this, with the attendant SJWs, lawyers, and twitter feed hysterics, and I want the baker to be policed by the ravages of the marketplace. My way is more efficient at getting what we both want. Show me how it isn't?
Why would a libertarian want to limit court access for one group of people?
Also, why do so many "libertarians" what to create the biggest government that the world has ever seen by outlawing abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc, etc?
Why do so many "libertarians" want to give big government the power to kill (ie the death penalty), which is also against the teaching of Christ?
And how many so-called "libertarians" supported clogging the court system and imposing big government during the entire Schiavo debacle in FL?
Forgive me for being confused, there seem to be a lot of hypocritical fake libertarians out there (ahem, like Rand And Ron Paul).
Just to clarify, are true libertarians in favor or opposed to those "no-go zones" I hear so much about on Fox News? Are no go zones only ok if they discriminate against gays? How can I know for certain that my entire business convention can stay at a hotel in IN if a few of my employees are gay?
Then imagine for one minute how it's been for gays and their REAL subjugation for centuries.
Have you ever been insulted in the street because you were straight? Fulminated at and told you'd burn in hell by religious ministers because you were straight? Beaten up or killed because you were straight? Told you were about the same level as pedophiles and drunks because you were straight?
Refused access to your sick or dying partner in hospital because you were straight? Chucked out of you and your partner's home of 30 years because you were straight? Had your children taken from you because you were straight? Lost your job because you were straight?[/quote]
You better believe it. Raised in a religious family and kicked out of the church. Never once thought that Tim Cook or the government should step in to help me. I just shop at different stores now... wow, what a concept!
Quote:
[quote]The anti-gay culture has been certifiably pervasive in every day life for centuries. Christians pretending to be bullied now is laughable. They had their chance to be respectable. They've demonstrated an unearned pious entitlement used to feel better about themselves at the expense of others.
Are gays fed up with BEING bullied and treated with equal or worse disdain for their entire lives? Yep. You reap what you sow. Complaining now and feigning victimhood is kind of laughable.
Tim Cook and the government have much more important things to do than setting up apparatuses that "ensure" gays/anyone's feelings aren't offended by "religious bigotry". A) it won't work, you can't legislate against stupidity and b) you're opening up a whole can of worms. It's not for me or you or anyone to decide whether depicting two men on a cake is morally right or wrong, it IS for the one baking the cake and the one choosing to give that baker his money.
46 pages of racist, homophobic bigots trying to justify their abhorrent viewpoint and why they should be allowed to discriminate.
To think Apple use to be synonymous with liberal, progressive and inclusiveness... ala "think different".
I'm not a racist, bigot nor homophobe.
I still don't want the government setting up a mechanism by which it will tell small business owners how they must think, what religion they're allowed to believe in, or who they'll be forced to serve, and then the government taxing me to police this "politically correct" regime. That government intrusion is a far worse crime and threat to liberty than any ignorant baker ever could be.
Wow! I didn't realize that Indiana had so many bakeries that they're right next door to each other! I saw way more truck stops than bakeries when I was in IN, but it must have changed dramatically!
More to the point, the right to discriminate against an entire group or class of people should be illegal. If a bakery wants to hang a sign that says, " No Shirts, No Service, No Sinners", that is their right, but it needs to apply to all groups equally- gamblers, fornicators, adulterers, etc. We all paid for that public road to your establishment, we all paid for the police and the fire department, we all paid for the schools and the military, etc, etc.
By the government, yes; by a private business or individual, absolutely not. You can't possibly police that. Who are you to say that in a person's mind, gambling = homosexuality? You can't say that, you have no idea what goes on in a person's mind. The idea that the government needs to step in and police these things is what Libertarians object to, not the arguments against irrational bakers.
Quote:
A right to religious liberty is not absolute when it contradicts the U.S. Constitution treating all people equally or when it poses a public risk. A Muslim American woman cannot, for example, wear a hijab covering her face for a driver's license photo.
The US Constitution says it also has to treat all religions equally, except when it reasonably can't. Hijab blocks the face for the identification photo. A group of homosexuals having to walk an extra block to buy a cake isn't the equivalent of forcing someone to violate their religious conscience in perpetuity as a matter of government policy.
I still don't want the government setting up a mechanism by which it will tell small business owners how they must think, what religion they're allowed to believe in, or who they'll be forced to serve, and then the government taxing me to police this "politically correct" regime. That government intrusion is a far worse crime and threat to liberty than any ignorant baker ever could be.
You know there's little evidence that going barefoot – provided one washes regularly – is any less sanitary than a person wearing shoes who doesn't wash his shoes, when it comes to a restaurant. When I was a teenager I tried going barefoot for a long time and would often "get away with" going into stores and coffee shops, ordering something, and then leaving again without being asked to leave. But sometimes I got thrown out, even aggressively and threateningly on occasion. Now as a mature adult I don't try that anymore. I can be barefoot at home, or in a park, or at the beach, or even on the street most of the time.
If 3-4% of the people agreed with me on the health benefits of going barefoot then we could become a political class and ask for government intervention. Meanwhile the vast majority of Americans would react with a backlash because no one gives a shit and they're being asked to pay for "supporting" yet another hard-done-by protected class.
I do know some ice cream shops that are ok with me coming in barefoot in the summertime though.
I know, I know, homosexuality isn't a choice. Well what about bisexuality then?
I have one friend who is 6'5" and another who is 4'11". They can't change it, they were "born" that way. Guess what, there are certain rides at the carnival they can't go on, certain people who don't want to date, marry or hire them because of that, certain cars and seating situations they aren't comfortable with or very difficult to use. They face some social obstacles from time to time, but in reality the vast majority of people:
1. Don't give a shit and are not bigoted;
and
2. Would very much resent yet another government tax and spend scheme to "protect the rights" of people with unusual height characteristics from "discrimination".
Where does it all end? I think Tim Cook should speak up on this issue! /s
You know there's little evidence that going barefoot – provided one washes regularly – is any less sanitary than a person wearing shoes who doesn't wash his shoes, when it comes to a restaurant. When I was a teenager I tried going barefoot for a long time and would often "get away with" going into stores and coffee shops, ordering something, and then leaving again without being asked to leave. But sometimes I got thrown out, even aggressively and threateningly on occasion. Now as a mature adult I don't try that anymore. I can be barefoot at home, or in a park, or at the beach, or even on the street most of the time.
If 3-4% of the people agreed with me on the health benefits of going barefoot then we could become a political class and ask for government intervention. Meanwhile the vast majority of Americans would react with a backlash because no one gives a shit and they're being asked to pay for "supporting" yet another hard-done-by protected class.
I do know some ice cream shops that are ok with me coming in barefoot in the summertime though.
I know, I know, homosexuality isn't a choice. Well what about bisexuality then?
I have one friend who is 6'5" and another who is 4'11". They can't change it, they were "born" that way. Guess what, there are certain rides at the carnival they can't go on, certain people who don't want to date, marry or hire them because of that, certain cars and seating situations they aren't comfortable with or very difficult to use. They face some social obstacles from time to time, but in reality the vast majority of people:
1. Don't give a shit and are not bigoted;
and
2. Would very much resent yet another government tax and spend scheme to "protect the rights" of people with unusual height characteristics from "discrimination".
Where does it all end? I think Tim Cook should speak up on this issue! /s
Quite.
Next up: Cook puts pressure for a boycott on all retailers that don't accept Apple Pay. "I'm deeply disappointed by this discrimination, which will unfairly reduce our profits by 0.00000000001%. Such an outrage will be condemned by everyone, because who doesn't like their iPhone? Now, I'm off to look at our Chinese factories."
I know, I know, homosexuality isn't a choice. Well what about bisexuality then?
Bisexuality may seem like one from the outside but isn’t a choice either. You may choose (to a degree) with whom you enter a relationship – but I have never met anyone who can select who they actually fall in love with. That’s chemistry. Can you choose between a tall woman or a short one to fall in love with? I mean an instant connection where you can’t get them out of your head? Can you choose between blonde, brunette or redhead and only from that one specific pool? You may have a preference but when attraction hits you it just runs you over. For many, the “average pool” is quite narrow (“I have a type”), for others the “pool” seems more broad because the desired attributes less quantifiable or based on physical traits than the rest of us.
Quote:
I have one friend who is 6'5" and another who is 4'11". They can't change it, they were "born" that way. Guess what, there are certain rides at the carnival they can't go on, certain people who don't want to date, marry or hire them because of that, certain cars and seating situations they aren't comfortable with or very difficult to use. They face some social obstacles from time to time, but in reality the vast majority of people:
1. Don't give a shit and are not bigoted;
and
2. Would very much resent yet another government tax and spend scheme to "protect the rights" of people with unusual height characteristics from "discrimination".
Where does it all end? I think Tim Cook should speak up on this issue! /s
True but it has also been a long ling time since beating very tall or very short people half to death, being fired from a job or letting them get married was an issue of concern. The issue is not understanding the difference and actively preventing a more even playing field for that to truly be a thing of the past.
Completely agree. It's polarizing. There are at least a small handul of people who find the whole Liberal agenda and Tim Cook's insertion into it to be offensive. Before, it was they make the best cellular telephone in the world, everyone knows it and they sell tens of millions of them every few weeks. Now it's politics. If he wants to be a politician he should figure out a way to resonate also with people who are not just leftists IMHO.
To someone on the other side of this issue, the whole thing feels like bullying. You have tens of millions of s certain class of people (religious folks) being told repetitively that they are stupid, uneducated, having psychotic breaks with reality, etc. However, some of them do have a higher education and can articulate why they disagree with socialism and communism and especially the kind that tries to pretend it is not.
Homogenization of thought is the PC agenda. The vitriol in these threads thrown against religious people has been astonishing to me. I am not a religuios person but I did learn in elementary school in Philadelphia, that the founding colonists were escaping religious persecution. And then they persecuted the natives, and on and on it goes.
I would tend to be wary of people who claim to have a monopoly on what is the correct way to think, speak and act, even so far as what cupcakes you must bake and what photography you must shoot. Whether or not they worship a god in the sky or a soup of amoebas under a volcano.
Yeah, except conservative business owners have a problem with this law also. Again the victim card (the persecution of Christians)....I'm sorry this sort of nonsense happens on both sides of this argument. The conservative party has brought this level of discourse to an art form. Also, the arrogant assumption that all Christians believe that this is the correct way for this country to move forward & that they are somehow being persecuted is ridiculous. The religious right is not innocent when it comes to smear tactics, name calling & other questionable behavior & bedfellows.
The Governor of Indiana already said businesses can't discriminate for any reason & changes are being made to wording of the bill. Taxpayers pay for the roads that lead to these businesses & the police that protect these businesses. They are businesses open to the public not churches. This is settled law.
Please don't flood this thread with your dissertations on everything under the sun. It seems like a lawyer's tactic when providing discovery to the opposing side by flooding the relevant information with noise to make the search for the relevant info more difficult to discern.
Why would a libertarian want to limit court access for one group of people?
Also, why do so many "libertarians" what to create the biggest government that the world has ever seen by outlawing abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc, etc?
Why do so many "libertarians" want to give big government the power to kill (ie the death penalty), which is also against the teaching of Christ?
I love how you're against the death penalty but have no issues with abortion.
I still don't want the government setting up a mechanism by which it will tell small business owners how they must think, what religion they're allowed to believe in, or who they'll be forced to serve, and then the government taxing me to police this "politically correct" regime. That government intrusion is a far worse crime and threat to liberty than any ignorant baker ever could be.
That's what progressives resort to: name calling and labeling.
Comments
All businesses discriminate, not least Apple.
Apple discriminates against the poor and the homeless.
You apparently weren't paying attention. Obama ended torture and warrentless wiretapping, as well as the illegal Iraq War. I, for one, don't believe killing Bin Laden was immoral- Pakistan was clearly not our ally in the WOT and was hiding OBL.
The US isn't at war in Iraq right now?
That's incorrect. Libertarians are pro-freedom and anti-violence and against the use of government to force people to do something they don't want to do.
Of COURSE it's shortsighted when people act irrationally when it comes to race, religion, etc., however as long as no one is attacked or hurt, people should be free to make dumb decisions that harm their own interests, and they should also suffer the consequences of such stupidity, including loss of business, bad online reviews, peaceful protests or shunning.
That's basically what I said.
Wow! I didn't realize that Indiana had so many bakeries that they're right next door to each other! I saw way more truck stops than bakeries when I was in IN, but it must have changed dramatically!
More to the point, the right to discriminate against an entire group or class of people should be illegal. If a bakery wants to hang a sign that says, " No Shirts, No Service, No Sinners", that is their right, but it needs to apply to all groups equally- gamblers, fornicators, adulterers, etc. We all paid for that public road to your establishment, we all paid for the police and the fire department, we all paid for the schools and the military, etc, etc.
A right to religious liberty is not absolute when it contradicts the U.S. Constitution treating all people equally or when it poses a public risk. A Muslim American woman cannot, for example, wear a hijab covering her face for a driver's license photo.
All businesses discriminate, not least Apple.
Apple discriminates against the poor and the homeless.
Yep. They aren't protected classes either. Whether they should be or not is not within the scope of this debate.
The Constitution does not force individuals to treat people "equally", it limits the power of the Federal government, but it seems the negative consequences of not abiding by the Constitution are not severe enough because they are still doing a poor job of even that simple task. When was the last time you saw a Federal worker or politician face any consequences for violating the Constitution?
And I don't think it was worth donating blood to the mosquito that just bit you. That's how it goes on to live another day, you know.
And I don't think it was worth donating blood to the mosquito that just bit you. That's how it goes on to live another day, you know.
Completely off topic, but meaning what exactly? Homeless and poor should be killed off through attrition?
If a divorced and remarried abomination of a sinner wanted a wedding cake, would the baker also be condoning this immoral marriage?
If a Christian bakes a Bar/Bat Mitzvah cake, is the baker denying Jesus?
What about abusive relationships? If someone beats their spouse, the baker who made their cake somehow condoned it?
I guess I never realized the gravity of the baking profession and how he or she needs to research the quality of a relationship before condoning the marriage. I hope all bakers are doing their due diligence and working with therapists, when required, before they condone any marriage.
LOL... the point is, it's none of our business – not the feds, not the state government, not militant lefties – the reasons that goes on in a baker's head for wanting or not wanting to bake a particular cake for a particular individual on a particular date. All this law says is you can't sue the baker for discrimination in that case.
Why? Because even if you CAN sue a baker for not depicting two gays on a cake, it won't cure discrimination. It will make the lawyers rich and antagonize people against one another for no good reason. You clog the courts and make lawyers rich, when the homosexual just needs to walk a block over and buy a cake elsewhere.
If the baker is too unreasonable too often, his business will die. The market is RUTHLESS when dealing with idiots.
Libertarians and liberals both agree, refusing to bake a cake probably isn't rational, might even be discriminatory or bigoted. Where we differ is, you want big brother to police this, with the attendant SJWs, lawyers, and twitter feed hysterics, and I want the baker to be policed by the ravages of the marketplace. My way is more efficient at getting what we both want. Show me how it isn't?
Why would a libertarian want to limit court access for one group of people?
Also, why do so many "libertarians" what to create the biggest government that the world has ever seen by outlawing abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc, etc?
Why do so many "libertarians" want to give big government the power to kill (ie the death penalty), which is also against the teaching of Christ?
And how many so-called "libertarians" supported clogging the court system and imposing big government during the entire Schiavo debacle in FL?
Forgive me for being confused, there seem to be a lot of hypocritical fake libertarians out there (ahem, like Rand And Ron Paul).
Just to clarify, are true libertarians in favor or opposed to those "no-go zones" I hear so much about on Fox News? Are no go zones only ok if they discriminate against gays? How can I know for certain that my entire business convention can stay at a hotel in IN if a few of my employees are gay?
Then imagine for one minute how it's been for gays and their REAL subjugation for centuries.
Have you ever been insulted in the street because you were straight? Fulminated at and told you'd burn in hell by religious ministers because you were straight? Beaten up or killed because you were straight? Told you were about the same level as pedophiles and drunks because you were straight?
Refused access to your sick or dying partner in hospital because you were straight? Chucked out of you and your partner's home of 30 years because you were straight? Had your children taken from you because you were straight? Lost your job because you were straight?[/quote]
You better believe it. Raised in a religious family and kicked out of the church. Never once thought that Tim Cook or the government should step in to help me. I just shop at different stores now... wow, what a concept!
[quote]The anti-gay culture has been certifiably pervasive in every day life for centuries. Christians pretending to be bullied now is laughable. They had their chance to be respectable. They've demonstrated an unearned pious entitlement used to feel better about themselves at the expense of others.
Are gays fed up with BEING bullied and treated with equal or worse disdain for their entire lives? Yep. You reap what you sow. Complaining now and feigning victimhood is kind of laughable.
Tim Cook and the government have much more important things to do than setting up apparatuses that "ensure" gays/anyone's feelings aren't offended by "religious bigotry". A) it won't work, you can't legislate against stupidity and b) you're opening up a whole can of worms. It's not for me or you or anyone to decide whether depicting two men on a cake is morally right or wrong, it IS for the one baking the cake and the one choosing to give that baker his money.
46 pages of racist, homophobic bigots trying to justify their abhorrent viewpoint and why they should be allowed to discriminate.
To think Apple use to be synonymous with liberal, progressive and inclusiveness... ala "think different".
I'm not a racist, bigot nor homophobe.
I still don't want the government setting up a mechanism by which it will tell small business owners how they must think, what religion they're allowed to believe in, or who they'll be forced to serve, and then the government taxing me to police this "politically correct" regime. That government intrusion is a far worse crime and threat to liberty than any ignorant baker ever could be.
Wow! I didn't realize that Indiana had so many bakeries that they're right next door to each other! I saw way more truck stops than bakeries when I was in IN, but it must have changed dramatically!
More to the point, the right to discriminate against an entire group or class of people should be illegal. If a bakery wants to hang a sign that says, " No Shirts, No Service, No Sinners", that is their right, but it needs to apply to all groups equally- gamblers, fornicators, adulterers, etc. We all paid for that public road to your establishment, we all paid for the police and the fire department, we all paid for the schools and the military, etc, etc.
By the government, yes; by a private business or individual, absolutely not. You can't possibly police that. Who are you to say that in a person's mind, gambling = homosexuality? You can't say that, you have no idea what goes on in a person's mind. The idea that the government needs to step in and police these things is what Libertarians object to, not the arguments against irrational bakers.
The US Constitution says it also has to treat all religions equally, except when it reasonably can't. Hijab blocks the face for the identification photo. A group of homosexuals having to walk an extra block to buy a cake isn't the equivalent of forcing someone to violate their religious conscience in perpetuity as a matter of government policy.
So you are ok with so-called "no go zones"?
So you are ok with so-called "no go zones"?
You're going to have to define it.
You know there's little evidence that going barefoot – provided one washes regularly – is any less sanitary than a person wearing shoes who doesn't wash his shoes, when it comes to a restaurant. When I was a teenager I tried going barefoot for a long time and would often "get away with" going into stores and coffee shops, ordering something, and then leaving again without being asked to leave. But sometimes I got thrown out, even aggressively and threateningly on occasion. Now as a mature adult I don't try that anymore. I can be barefoot at home, or in a park, or at the beach, or even on the street most of the time.
If 3-4% of the people agreed with me on the health benefits of going barefoot then we could become a political class and ask for government intervention. Meanwhile the vast majority of Americans would react with a backlash because no one gives a shit and they're being asked to pay for "supporting" yet another hard-done-by protected class.
I do know some ice cream shops that are ok with me coming in barefoot in the summertime though.
I know, I know, homosexuality isn't a choice. Well what about bisexuality then?
I have one friend who is 6'5" and another who is 4'11". They can't change it, they were "born" that way. Guess what, there are certain rides at the carnival they can't go on, certain people who don't want to date, marry or hire them because of that, certain cars and seating situations they aren't comfortable with or very difficult to use. They face some social obstacles from time to time, but in reality the vast majority of people:
1. Don't give a shit and are not bigoted;
and
2. Would very much resent yet another government tax and spend scheme to "protect the rights" of people with unusual height characteristics from "discrimination".
Where does it all end? I think Tim Cook should speak up on this issue! /s
Quite.
Next up: Cook puts pressure for a boycott on all retailers that don't accept Apple Pay. "I'm deeply disappointed by this discrimination, which will unfairly reduce our profits by 0.00000000001%. Such an outrage will be condemned by everyone, because who doesn't like their iPhone? Now, I'm off to look at our Chinese factories."
I know, I know, homosexuality isn't a choice. Well what about bisexuality then?
Bisexuality may seem like one from the outside but isn’t a choice either. You may choose (to a degree) with whom you enter a relationship – but I have never met anyone who can select who they actually fall in love with. That’s chemistry. Can you choose between a tall woman or a short one to fall in love with? I mean an instant connection where you can’t get them out of your head? Can you choose between blonde, brunette or redhead and only from that one specific pool? You may have a preference but when attraction hits you it just runs you over. For many, the “average pool” is quite narrow (“I have a type”), for others the “pool” seems more broad because the desired attributes less quantifiable or based on physical traits than the rest of us.
1. Don't give a shit and are not bigoted;
and
2. Would very much resent yet another government tax and spend scheme to "protect the rights" of people with unusual height characteristics from "discrimination".
Where does it all end? I think Tim Cook should speak up on this issue! /s
True but it has also been a long ling time since beating very tall or very short people half to death, being fired from a job or letting them get married was an issue of concern. The issue is not understanding the difference and actively preventing a more even playing field for that to truly be a thing of the past.
Completely agree. It's polarizing. There are at least a small handul of people who find the whole Liberal agenda and Tim Cook's insertion into it to be offensive. Before, it was they make the best cellular telephone in the world, everyone knows it and they sell tens of millions of them every few weeks. Now it's politics. If he wants to be a politician he should figure out a way to resonate also with people who are not just leftists IMHO.
To someone on the other side of this issue, the whole thing feels like bullying. You have tens of millions of s certain class of people (religious folks) being told repetitively that they are stupid, uneducated, having psychotic breaks with reality, etc. However, some of them do have a higher education and can articulate why they disagree with socialism and communism and especially the kind that tries to pretend it is not.
Homogenization of thought is the PC agenda. The vitriol in these threads thrown against religious people has been astonishing to me. I am not a religuios person but I did learn in elementary school in Philadelphia, that the founding colonists were escaping religious persecution. And then they persecuted the natives, and on and on it goes.
I would tend to be wary of people who claim to have a monopoly on what is the correct way to think, speak and act, even so far as what cupcakes you must bake and what photography you must shoot. Whether or not they worship a god in the sky or a soup of amoebas under a volcano.
Yeah, except conservative business owners have a problem with this law also. Again the victim card (the persecution of Christians)....I'm sorry this sort of nonsense happens on both sides of this argument. The conservative party has brought this level of discourse to an art form. Also, the arrogant assumption that all Christians believe that this is the correct way for this country to move forward & that they are somehow being persecuted is ridiculous. The religious right is not innocent when it comes to smear tactics, name calling & other questionable behavior & bedfellows.
The Governor of Indiana already said businesses can't discriminate for any reason & changes are being made to wording of the bill. Taxpayers pay for the roads that lead to these businesses & the police that protect these businesses. They are businesses open to the public not churches. This is settled law.
Please don't flood this thread with your dissertations on everything under the sun. It seems like a lawyer's tactic when providing discovery to the opposing side by flooding the relevant information with noise to make the search for the relevant info more difficult to discern.
I love how you're against the death penalty but have no issues with abortion.
That's what progressives resort to: name calling and labeling.
I love how you're against the death penalty but have no issues with abortion.
That's what progressives resort to: name calling and labeling.
On the extremes, both sides have a value of life issue between the death penalty and abortion.
Both sides also usually resort to name calling and labeling.