indiana

[see4]

Agreed. I have to deal with people that I would rather not over the course of my day. It is called being employed.

What!! Noo!! You are being forcibly coerced into doing something you don't want to do!! RAPE!!! Ahhhh!!!

You better call the law offices of Rob Roy & Sloppy Seconds.

 

[overgrowem]

Pot church forms in Indiana. Suit will soon follow. Let's hope the state has opened door..

 

[Padawanbater2]

 

[Rob Roy]

These guys certainly seem like assholes, but then again most people that want to use the force of government to intervene in peoples lives have the ability to ignore their own contradictions. Peace.

 

[max420thc]

So its all cool with you liberal Nazis,,a homo walk's into a bakery,,demands the baker who happens to be, Christian , Jewish or Muslim and demands they make him a wedding reception cake, one with a penis inserted into a ass hole, According to you morons the baker MUST make the cake for the homo,
OR BE SUED into bankruptcy by some radical homo Nazi group,
BUT YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS,
What about the rights and freedom of the baker?
That's all this law is about is protecting the baker and his private property rights and the rights of his business along with his religious beliefs to be persecuted by you homo pole smoking weirdos,

 

[Rob Roy]

So its all cool with you liberal Nazis,,a homo walk's into a bakery,,demands the baker who happens to be, Christian , Jewish or Muslim and demands they make him a wedding reception cake, one with a penis inserted into a ass hole, According to you morons the baker MUST make the cake for the homo,
OR BE SUED into bankruptcy by some radical homo Nazi group,
BUT YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS,
What about the rights and freedom of the baker?
That's all this law is about is protecting the baker and his private property rights and the rights of his business along with his religious beliefs to be persecuted by you homo pole smoking weirdos,

While I agree that your property rights argument is valid, I'm not sure it was necessary to denigrate homosexuals to make your point.

Another example could have been that a black baker shouldn't be forced to make a cake decorated with a depiction of a group of Klansmen somehow abusing a black person. In that instance I would fully support the baker telling the Klansmen to go to Wendys and shit in his hat.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So its all cool with you liberal Nazis,,a homo walk's into a bakery,,demands the baker who happens to be, Christian , Jewish or Muslim and demands they make him a wedding reception cake, one with a penis inserted into a ass hole, According to you morons the baker MUST make the cake for the homo,
OR BE SUED into bankruptcy by some radical homo Nazi group,
BUT YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS,
What about the rights and freedom of the baker?
That's all this law is about is protecting the baker and his private property rights and the rights of his business along with his religious beliefs to be persecuted by you homo pole smoking weirdos,

Your latent homosexuality is showing

Despite your hyperbolic example, let me provide one maybe you'll be a little more sympathetic towards..

You go to Subway for a sandwich, after your homosexual interracial group sex bukkake marathon, you've got a hankering for some meat, so you tell the young man behind the counter you'd like a ham on white (because if you ain't white, you ain't right, am I right?!), extra mayo, and salt, but no pepper, because black and all.. The young man informs you he's Muslim and therefore can't handle pork products, despite your insatiable appetite for said meat.

Now, do you respect his "religious freedom" to not serve you a ham sandwich, even though he voluntarily accepted a job at Subway, knowing full well before hand he'd be required to handle pork products? I bet you'd be the first in line to protect the poor Muslim man's rights, now wouldn't you...?

Bakers don't wanna bake cakes, get the fuck out of the cake baking business. Seems pretty fuckin' simple to me..

 

[Padawanbater2]

While I agree that your property rights argument is valid, I'm not sure it was necessary to denigrate homosexuals to make your point.

Another example could have been that a black baker shouldn't be forced to make a cake decorated with a depiction of a group of Klansmen somehow abusing a black person. In that instance I would fully support the baker telling the Klansmen to go to Wendys and shit in his hat.

Do you people think homosexual couples requesting a fuckin' wedding cake are asking these wholesome, good hearted Christian victims to portray explicit homosexual acts in the most vulgar way possible on the cake?

They're asking for a fuckin' wedding cake, identical to a heterosexual couples wedding cake, zero fuckin' difference. These analogies are so far out in left field they don't even deserve to be entertained.

There is no reason a Christian baker wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple except discrimination.

 

[Rob Roy]

Your latent homosexuality is showing

Despite your hyperbolic example, let me provide one maybe you'll be a little more sympathetic towards..

You go to Subway for a sandwich, after your homosexual interracial group sex bukkake marathon, you've got a hankering for some meat, so you tell the young man behind the counter you'd like a ham on white (because if you ain't white, you ain't right, am I right?!), extra mayo, and salt, but no pepper, because black and all.. The young man informs you he's Muslim and therefore can't handle pork products, despite your insatiable appetite for said meat.

Now, do you respect his "religious freedom" to not serve you a ham sandwich, even though he voluntarily accepted a job at Subway, knowing full well before hand he'd be required to handle pork products? I bet you'd be the first in line to protect the poor Muslim man's rights, now wouldn't you...?

Bakers don't wanna bake cakes, get the fuck out of the cake baking business. Seems pretty fuckin' simple to me..

So a black person should be forced to bake a cake depicting a heinous act of violence against other black people ?

Don't you think that baker has a right to control his/her own body and have a say in what he/she will or won't do with their own business on their own property?


Also, you have a vivid imagination.

 

[Rob Roy]

Do you people think homosexual couples requesting a fuckin' wedding cake are asking these wholesome, good hearted Christian victims to portray explicit homosexual acts in the most vulgar way possible on the cake?

They're asking for a fuckin' wedding cake, identical to a heterosexual couples wedding cake, zero fuckin' difference. These analogies are so far out in left field they don't even deserve to be entertained.

There is no reason a Christian baker wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple except discrimination.

If a person can't make discriminations (willful choices) about how they use their own property and body are you okay with laws that prohibit people from ingesting things they choose to ingest?

Depriving another person of their ability to seek services from a willing service provider would be creating a harm.

Insisting a person serve you, when they prefer not to, under threat of harm, doesn't that create a harm too? Tactically speaking isn't the initiation of force or threat of it something that causes harm?

How do you reconcile the use of force to make a person serve you? Don't bigots have rights to use their own body as they see fit?

 

[Padawanbater2]

So a black person should be forced to bake a cake depicting a heinous act of violence against other black people ?

Don't you think that baker has a right to control his/her own body and have a say in what he/she will or won't do with their own business on their own property?


Also, you have a vivid imagination.

If the cake baking company said black man works for, and it's legal according to federal law (to tell you the truth, I'm not aware if depicting such things on a cake is actually legal, but if it is then this I'd stand by this statement), then absolutely I believe he should have to do it, it's his job. What job can you keep and just say "I don't wanna do that" to some task your boss gives you and get away with it? Zero. People are generally aware of their responsibilities before they accept a job offer, denying them after the fact based on anything is a breach of contract. For some reason this is a valid argument against raising the minimum wage with the right, but it's somehow different when it comes to perceived religious persecution, that's interesting..

Not if the bakers choices result in discrimination

 

[Rob Roy]

If the cake baking company said black man works for, and it's legal according to federal law (to tell you the truth, I'm not aware if depicting such things on a cake is actually legal, but if it is then this I'd stand by this statement), then absolutely I believe he should have to do it, it's his job. What job can you keep and just say "I don't wanna do that" to some task your boss gives you and get away with it? Zero. People are generally aware of their responsibilities before they accept a job offer, denying them after the fact based on anything is a breach of contract. For some reason this is a valid argument against raising the minimum wage with the right, but it's somehow different when it comes to perceived religious persecution, that's interesting..

Not if the bakers choices result in discrimination

What if the black baker owns the building and the baking business?

 

[Rob Roy]

you're doing the opposite right now, bigot.



no it's not, you and the klan have the same beliefs on this and many more issues.

No. In the situation you describe, there's another person involved besides my son that has rights too.

Nobody, not even a bigot or a floor shitter should be forced to interact with or serve another person if they remain on their own property.

You don't "protect" one persons rights by violating anothers Poopy Pants.

 

[schuylaar]

I oppose any act by a coercive government.

I think people should be able to chose their interactions on a peaceful and voluntary basis of all the involved parties.

How about you, do you think people should be free to interact without somebody threatening force on them?

it's the ruling class which decides upon coercive government.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If a person can't make discriminations (willful choices) about how they use their own property and body are you okay with laws that prohibit people from ingesting things they choose to ingest?

You're conflating civil rights with property rights. As I've said multiple times already which for whatever reason you consistently seem to ignore, I believe a person has every right you do, where we differ seems to be when those rights enter into the public square. If you own/operate a business open to the public, your beliefs/opinions/prejudices/biases/likes & dislikes come second over federally mandated civil rights. So if you don't believe in serving pork because it's against your religion and you accept a job at Subway, where pork is a staple of the menu and you are free to work wherever you choose, you are legally required to serve customers pork, regardless of your personal beliefs. One main question I have for you is that if these people are fully aware of the situation beforehand, and yet still obstruct the workings of the business because of religious convictions anyway, how is that not their own fault from the beginning for accepting the job in the first place? Wouldn't that be like a lifeguard accepting a job then when someone starts drowning he says he can't get in the water because his religion doesn't permit it?

Insisting a person serve you, when they prefer not to, under threat of harm, doesn't that create a harm too?

I would not define harm as a demand for equal rights under the law. I would define harm as denying said equal rights under the law to citizens based on superficial justifications.

If someone is beating the shit out of someone and you step in to stop it, are you "infringing on that person's right" to beat the shit out of the other person? Of course not, right? Because that person didn't have that right to begin with.. How is this any different?

Tactically speaking isn't the initiation of force or threat of it something that causes harm?

What kind of odd ass blanket statement is that? You believe the initiation of force or threat of it always causes harm? That's ridiculous. SWAT teams initiate force subduing hostage takers, totally valid that usually saves lives. Professional fighters initiate force to defeat opponents, again, totally valid.. Force does not always cause harm. The initiation of force can and has led to beneficial conclusions.

How do you reconcile the use of force to make a person serve you? Don't bigots have rights to use their own body as they see fit?

See above

Absolutely, up until the point their beliefs/choices/decisions reach over into the public square and equate to discrimination

 

[Padawanbater2]

What if the black baker owns the building and the baking business?

The exact same applies

Think of it this way, the baker owns the business, but the gov. owns the land the business is on, which means the owner of the business has to follow the rules the owner of the land has set. If they disagree with the landlords rules, they're free to go get another landlord

 

[schuylaar]

I know you have a really hard time grasping this concept, but let me try to break it down for you in dumb dumb terms, by use of an example.

Say that your gay son goes to a store that is open to the public and is immediately forcibly removed simply because of his sexual preference. You are basically defending the store who kicked your gay son, rather than your son. I understand that your argument is that your gay sword swallowing son, assuming he does the sword swallowing act in local carnivals, has the right to not go to that store at all, which currently he has that same right. But what I don't understand is that you willfully ignore the fact that these discriminatory ways were once acceptable and had a profoundly negative impact on society for many years. I don't understand why you want that again? The only logical conclusion is that you are a racist bigot who hates his son.

Family first man. Set aside your utter contempt for society and think about your family and gay son. I should ask, does he swallow swords? You and your family seem like a circus act to me.

i don't see where RR said he would frequent these establishments..as a non-slave he would then choose to not do business out of principle for his son. the only caveat would be if those goods were critical to survival. survival trump 'feelings'.

how did i do, RR?

 

[Rob Roy]

You're conflating civil rights with property rights. As I've said multiple times already which for whatever reason you consistently seem to ignore, I believe a person has every right you do, where we differ seems to be when those rights enter into the public square. If you own/operate a business open to the public, your beliefs/opinions/prejudices/biases/likes & dislikes come second over federally mandated civil rights. So if you don't believe in serving pork because it's against your religion and you accept a job at Subway, where pork is a staple of the menu and you are free to work wherever you choose, you are legally required to serve customers pork, regardless of your personal beliefs. One main question I have for you is that if these people are fully aware of the situation beforehand, and yet still obstruct the workings of the business because of religious convictions anyway, how is that not their own fault from the beginning for accepting the job in the first place? Wouldn't that be like a lifeguard accepting a job then when someone starts drowning he says he can't get in the water because his religion doesn't permit it?

I would not define harm as a demand for equal rights under the law. I would define harm as denying said equal rights under the law to citizens based on superficial justifications.

If someone is beating the shit out of someone and you step in to stop it, are you "infringing on that person's right" to beat the shit out of the other person? Of course not, right? Because that person didn't have that right to begin with.. How is this any different?

What kind of odd ass blanket statement is that? You believe the initiation of force or threat of it always causes harm? That's ridiculous. SWAT teams initiate force subduing hostage takers, totally valid that usually saves lives. Professional fighters initiate force to defeat opponents, again, totally valid.. Force does not always cause harm. The initiation of force can and has led to beneficial conclusions.

See above

Absolutely, up until the point their beliefs/choices/decisions reach over into the public square and equate to discrimination

You have confused the initiation of force and the use of defensive force to protect a person or their justly acquired property. They are not the same thing.

In your example the hostage taker initiated the force, not the persons using force defensively. Also, when people fight in a ring, neither was forced to do so, both agreed to it.

If somebody is beating the shit out of somebody, it is important to determine, who began the interaction or who "initiated force".

In the context I have described the meaning of "initiation of force", would you agree that being the person that starts shit or "initaites force" is the aggressor?

Again, the use of defensive force is not the same as an initiation of force, it is a valid response to somebody initiating force against your person or your property.

 

[Rob Roy]

The exact same applies

Think of it this way, the baker owns the business, but the gov. owns the land the business is on, which means the owner of the business has to follow the rules the owner of the land has set. If they disagree with the landlords rules, they're free to go get another landlord

What if the black baker owns the land?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You have confused the initiation of force and the use of defensive force to protect a person or their justly acquired property. They are not the same thing.

In your example the hostage taker initiated the force, not the persons using force defensively. Also, when people fight in a ring, neither was forced to do so, both agreed to it.

If somebody is beating the shit out of somebody, it is important to determine, who began the interaction or who "initiated force".

In the context I have described the meaning of "initiation of force", would you agree that being the person that starts shit or "initaites force" is the aggressor?

Again, the use of defensive force is not the same as an initiation of force, it is a valid response to somebody initiating force against your person or your property.

OK, lets analyze this

Defensive v. Offensive "force"

In the context of the homosexual couple requesting a wedding cake from the Christian baker opposed to homosexual marriage, I would argue the initiation of force is coming from the Christian baker. I believe this to be the case because 1. they took the job fully aware of the responsibilities of the position, including baking cakes for homosexual couples, in accordance with federal law, & 2. the civil rights act of 1964 guarantees American citizens, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin equal protection from discrimination under the law. Discrimination is treatment or consideration of a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than individual merit. Therefore, the defensive position to take is opposition to said discrimination.

I've argued that business owners don't have the right to discriminate against people based on the reasons outlined by the CRA of 1964, it defines discrimination very clearly

What if the black baker owns the land?

The gov. owns the land, every inch of America, we just rent it