Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Rudy Canoza
2016-12-27 15:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/27/2016 5:31 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> 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
On 12/27/2016 12:33 PM, Matt wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 8:31:30 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>> 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]

On 12/27/2016 12:44 PM, Matt wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 3:36:11 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 12/27/2016 12:33 PM, Matt wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 8:31:30 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> 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]

On 12/27/2016 12:53 PM, Matt wrote:
> On 12/27/2016 12:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [followups vandalism by HIV+ "kiddo" repaired]
>>
>> On 12/27/2016 12:44 PM, Matt wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 3:36:11 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2016 12:33 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 8:31:30 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> 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
On 12/28/2016 4:36 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 12/28/2016 01:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 12/27/2016 10:13 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2016 11:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2016 8:28 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 12/27/2016 11:57 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/27/2016 01:16 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/27/2016 5:31 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 09:00:30 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> On 12/28/2016 4:36 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 12/28/2016 01:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2016 10:13 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2016 11:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 12/27/2016 8:28 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/27/2016 11:57 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/27/2016 01:16 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/27/2016 5:31 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 7:57:57 PM UTC-5, MarkA wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 09:00:30 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > On 12/28/2016 4:36 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> On 12/28/2016 01:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> > *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
On 12/29/2016 8:13 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
>> NoBody wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote: >>
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
>>>>>>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:47:41 -0800, Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 12/29/2016 8:13 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote: >>
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
>>>>>>>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
On 12/30/2016 7:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:47:41 -0800, Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2016 8:13 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote: >>
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
>>>>>>>>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> 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
On 12/30/2016 10:41 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 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
On 12/30/2016 10:41 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 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
On 12/30/2016 10:41 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 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 12/29/2016 8:42 AM, First-Post wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote: >>
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
>>>>>>>>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:48:46 AM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 12/29/2016 8:42 AM, First-Post wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
> >>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
> >>>> NoBody wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote: >>
> >>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
> >>>>>>>>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
On 12/30/2016 12:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 12/29/2016 9:07 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 12/29/2016 02:50 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2016 10:37 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2016 11:59 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 12/29/2016 8:13 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> {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
On 12/30/2016 11:07 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 12/30/2016 12:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 12/29/2016 9:07 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2016 02:50 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2016 10:37 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>> On 12/29/2016 11:59 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/29/2016 8:13 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {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
On 12/30/2016 02:44 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> On 12/30/2016 11:07 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 12/30/2016 12:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2016 9:07 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2016 02:50 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 12/29/2016 10:37 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/29/2016 11:59 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/29/2016 8:13 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {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
On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 12:07:17 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

>
> 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 12/30/2016 12:55 PM, Lee wrote:
> Salty Stan wrote:
>
>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-5, Lee wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2016 09:55 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:09:28 -0600, "Lee" <***@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:48:16 -0600, "Lee"
>>>>>>>> <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote: >>
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
>>>>>>>>>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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...