Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 15:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Lots. Performing at an inauguration is not part of being a business
open to the public. It's a dedicated, one-off service not available to
the public.

You're so stupid.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
US law. Morals don't apply to the law. Never have, never will.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.

<chuckle>

You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.
<chuckle>
You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
<BAWL>
I need to go back to first grade.
Yes.

<chuckle>
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 20:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
Hm.
That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.
That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morally
right.
<chuckle>
You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.
<BAWL>
I need to go back to first grade.
Yes.
<chuckle>
AWw, lookie,
See? You already *have* gone back to first grade, "kiddo."

<chuckle>
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-28 17:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same
sex
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open to
the
public), the former is based on what the person believes, the
latter is
based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse
to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex wedding, it is
immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for a politician
because
he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at all
apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality. It
is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get the
time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the
law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate *fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that if
a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws, then
he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a religious
objection to following the law, then he should be granted an exemption
to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious belief, then
he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is intolerable. It is
fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs *OUGHT* to have no
consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are bullshit and deserve
no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.

My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
MarkA
2016-12-29 01:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for
a same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to same
sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open
to the public), the former is based on what the person believes,
the latter is based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
refuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex
wedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for
a politician because he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
trait)
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at
all apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality.
It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get
the time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
the law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate
*fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that
if a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws,
then he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a
religious objection to following the law, then he should be granted an
exemption to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious
belief, then he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is
intolerable. It is fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs
*OUGHT* to have no consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are
bullshit and deserve no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve
protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.
My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
--
MarkA

You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MarkA
Post by Rudy Canoza
*I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.
well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That is
why people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a
"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem to
become more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.
Re: Jefferson and "the Creator."

He was the main writer of a committee of 5, and even if he had not
included a phrase like "Nature's God," popular among Deists, in
addition to mentioning a Creator, the rest of the committee, with
the possible exception of Franklin, would have insisted on it, if
only to appease the rest of the Congress, several of whom were
ministers.

Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.
Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people's
lives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another person
aggresses against him.

For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who were
followers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "the
inevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'
rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlier
ideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.

Is "live and let live" that hard to comprehend?

Kevin R
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
NoBody
2016-12-30 15:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Please cite it for us.
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-30 17:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants
*tenets*, you buffoon
of theirfaith as a condition of being in business,
They are not being required to do that. Nothing in their faith says
"don't bake cakes for queers getting married."
Have you researched their belief system and found what you claim?
Yes.
Post by NoBody
Please cite it for us.
Fuck off. Only fruit rabbits and pantywaists shrilly squeak "Cite!
Cite!" in every post.
radar range
2016-12-30 17:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
radar range
2016-12-30 17:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off.
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
radar range
2016-12-30 18:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
rabbits and pantywaists
You give NO MORE ORDERS HERE...or ANYWHERE - Jonathan "little man" Ball!

_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-29 16:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
creed.
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
simple.
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.

Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals hsve lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.

There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.

Kevin R
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 17:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.

It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.

That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
--
That's Karma
Tom McDonald
2016-12-30 19:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 20:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
{snip}
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the
hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance
positions
counter to theirs.
There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (the
proscription applies whether it is based in religious and secular
beliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.
That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refuse
a gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they are
doing
the same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay wedding
cake.
If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.
However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.
SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion is
burning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them and
likewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant the
gays are they have to sing for them.
I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the general
public. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddings
and Satanic weddings.
exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with his
religious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of the
constitution.
The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,
and thus are not subject to the law.
We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are not
willing to provide a service to provide that service against their will?
And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things they
were not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.
NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....

If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.
--
That's Karma
Kevrob
2016-12-30 19:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. They
are refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.
That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.
Do the people who play at an Inaugural get paid anything other than
expenses? I would think that, normally, they do it gratis, for the
publicity. If so, non-discrimination law would not apply.

Standard disclaimer: IANAL.

Kevin R
Beam Me Up Scotty
2016-12-30 18:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee"
wrote: >>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to
perform at a presidential inauguration because you
have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a
wedding >>cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a
moral >>opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not
performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one
should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their
belief >>system. >> They have no problems with Christians
driving people out >>of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel
because it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are
legally bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is
the hypocrisy of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the
tenants of their faith as a condition of being in business, while
allowing liberal performers to refuse to entertain t at functions
which advance positions counter to theirs.
No one is "requiring" Christians to
violate their tenets. They can obey their
tenets or obey the law. No one is forcing
them to operate a store.
Is it your position that "religious
merchants" don't have to obey the law?
Did Rosa Parks obey the law?
Did Rosa Parks claim any "religious
right" to violate the law?
Just those inalienable RIGHTS given to her by her creator and recognized
and protected by the constitution.

SO you could say she was claiming her God given rights as a human life
were being violated.... I don't remember exactly how "she" phrased it
when they took her to jail.

The State was requiring her to violate the constitution by requiring her
to accept a place as a second class citizen, just as a person that
decides to own a store is told by state laws again that they are a
second class citizen. The State is saying that the State has the power
to tell the store owner where to sit or what cakes they must bake.

Again the RIGHTS of people are violated by the State, and someone is
being forced to become a second class citizen. If the city government
bus line can't issue a bus ticket to tell people they're second class
citizens then how can they issue a business/commerce license that crates
a second class citizen?
--
That's Karma
Loading...