[flagged]
Nothing in my statements endorses racism in any form. The only reason to bring that as a response is to strawman and attack what you think is said and not what really exists.
This is the same reasoning, what you’re using, that people used for segregation. The reason people are forced to serve black people in restaurants is the same reason that these protections for LGBT people exist. It’s “protected classes” including race.
It was in the oral arguments, Alito was discussing a black Santa at a mall and a kid in a KKK hood. So I’m not standing up a straw man, I’m not calling you hitler, but it is funny how quickly you ran to that as some kind of defense.
I literally responded to your escalation with an equally stupid response. I responded in kind.
"protected class" you mean... like religion? You realize that religion is a protected class? belief in stuff like traditional marriage?
Serving you food is not the same as creating art with a message that goes against your religion. Just like the cake guy didn't refuse to sell to anyone - he simply refused to make product with messages that went against his religion. he would sell you a cake... but not one with a message.
We aren't "going backwards". We won't have black people at the back of the bus. The only ones fighting for segregation today is, like always, the left as they push for segregated graduation ceremonies and the like.
Stop being disingenuous and maybe I won't be forced to respond in the way I did.
This form of discourse doesn’t belong here. Fight on Twitter
"this form of discourse" what form? defending simple statements? Attacking strawman attacks? Celebrating freedom of speech and the defense of freedom of religion? If the discorse isn't allowed here? why not?
what are you afraid of hearing?
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
Ok, Mr. Religious. What parts of the Bible do you think give you the right to tell gay people what to do with their lives?
I’ll need specific passages please. I’ve read the whole New Testament, and Jesus was a tolerant fellow. I’m going to assume you live in a glass house and haven’t sinned right?
Your rights end when other peoples rights begin.
You may not like it... but at the end of the day? Religion is a protected right - and for damn good reasons.
Here's the clue: I'm not telling gay people how to live their life. I'm saying they can't tell me to make stuff that endorses their lifestyle.
Before you presume to talk to me about religion... pull the stick out of your ass, the plank from your eye and stop acting like me not making you a cake or a website is telling you how to live your life.
Either you're being disingenuous or you're purposely lying to make a point that is wrong.
Again, since you seem to be slow: No one is saying you can't be gay - we aren't telling you how to live your life. Fuck who you want. How you want.
What they are saying is YOU can't force others to endorse your lifestyle.
Your right to be gay ends at someone else's right to think it's wrong - and it doesn't include your right to FORCE someone else to say what you want or create product with messages you want.
What part of your right to live how you want includes forcing others to support it? That's the difference between you and me... I don't give a shit what you do with your body... but you won't force me to support your decisions.
You need to realize that before you even attempt to talk to me about who Jesus was, what he represented or try to "school" me on who gets to throw the first stone... because you have no moral high ground on either topic.
Lemme know when you find some religious basis for what you're saying, way I see it you're just a bigot trying to find an excuse to make someone else feel small.
I've given you my answer.
"religious basis" for what? freedom of religion?
Your just an unintelligent person trying to ignore the truth that it doesn't matter what my religous basis is. Jesus, Muhammed, Moses, Shiva... People have deeply held religious beliefs and it's not me trying to make someone feel small.
It's me standing up to narcists like yourself who think you can bully others into supporting your message because you don't agree with religious foundations.
Which is why you're saying "But Jesus..." when you have shit all knowledge of what Jesus would actually say and when that has nothing real to do with the topic at hand:
Religion is a protected class and you can't force someone to use their free speech to endorse your lifestyle.
Stop deflecting you coward and stick to that fact. I can defend what the Bible says - but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand because this isn't limited to the Bible and Jesus.
I've given you the answer... you're just to ignorant to understand that your right to live doesn't trump my right to religion.
My points stand no matter if you run from them or not.
Freedom of religion is a protected class no matter how much it hurts your feelings that that freedom means you can't bully people into supporting something you don't like.
I understand you're a bigot and won't accept alternative viewpoints. It's okay. Its also why you run from the conversation.
If you actually addressed the points I made instead of deflecting you might have to admit that freedom of religion means others don't have to endorse your choices.
Show me where in the constitution that it says that you can force others to not follow their religion? Show a law that says that America doesn't protect the religious freedom of its citizens? Show me that religion isn't a protected class and you might have a point.
Stop deflecting to me. I'm not the topic of conversation. My beliefs aren't the topic of debate.
You trying to bully others into not following their faith - no matter what it is - is the topic of conversation. Plenty of religions don't support gays or gay marriage (Hint: Go to any middle eastern country and walk around in drag. For reference see people getting arrested during the soccer games for wearing lgbt paraphenelia).
Again, so MAYBE you'll eventually get a clue by pure repetition: My religion isn't in discussion here. I've not pushed a specific religion or belief. Your narcissism and demand that others must create stuff with your message is what's on display here.
Take a step back and stop focusing on me. The problem you have is you want to destroy the rights of others.
Thankfully in America? Freedom of Speech and protected classes like Religion stop you from doing so.
Not making you a cake or a website? If that's "discrimination"? You are reaching for that victim card to validate your "oppression".
Hint: That's not oppression or discrimination... that's simply the freedom of others to not be enslaved by you and bigots who don't agree with free choices made by others based on religious beliefs.
I'm absolutely arguing in good faith despite you trying to "but Jesus" me.
My point is simple and has been consistent. Trying to put me in the hotseat is the problem here because this isn't an argument about me personally it's an argument about free speech and protected classes in the US.
edit: and to be clear... I'd sit down and have a beer with you anytime. You haven't been disrespectful or personally attacked even if you've try to make the discussion personally about me - there is a difference. I do respect that and wouldn't have continued the conversation otherwise.
"tolerant of and good to other people"
tolerant doesn't mean you have to support or endorse. If I was, say, anti-Trans (which I'm not - you live your life. You answer for your decisions.)? as a Christian? I can still be the Christlike example and love you. Help you. And still tell you "God loves and you're in the right body". In loving you and accepting you but not supporting your "sins"? I would have the right and duty to not create a cake, shirt, website with a message that's pro-your life.
I can be tolerant of you being an alcoholic or a drug addict... I would be under no pressure to buy alcohol/drugs/etc to support your bad lifestyle.
And again... this isn't about me personally. It doesn't matter how fortunate you are or what life you live. You don't have the right to force others to create works that support what you think is "good". Just like I wouldn't have the right to say YOU can't create a cake for "pride month".
Jesus helped less fortunate... he helped the sick, the lame, the dead. That doesn't mean he endorsed their lifestyles.
Nothing about Jesus supports FORCING others to be "tolerant" of sin and to ENDORSE sinful activity. He helps? Again... that doesn't mean he loves the sin or endorses it.
In this case, I do not think this web designer would be helping anyone sin, honestly they are probably just providing a template and some theme, copy would be basically immaterial.
Then comes the more theoretical aspect, which is how do I know I'm helping someone sin by helping gay people get married? The Pope says it's not for us to judge, and I agree. So what I'm saying is that reasonable people can disagree on this being an infringement of religious rights, and that is essentially what I was trying to talk about.
I am a Marine, I went to war, I did things I can't take back or be forgiven for in the literal Old Testament version of things, but Jesus said, basically, forget all that old fire and wrath, you're forgiven if you ask for it. I try to treat everyone as most people treat me, which is to say not to throw stones at me as I walk down the street, or whatever the equivalent is in our time. That's my personal philosophy, and I think makes for much more interesting discussion about this. Do you see where I'm coming from?
The designer/cake maker/etc is implicitly supporting if one of their products has the message in support of it.
When Target sells pro-trans shirts? The company is implicitly supportive of it - just like a cake shop would be implicitly supportive of Nazi's if they baked a birthday cake with "Happy Birthday Hitler KKK Forever". Someone else could take those shirts from target or the cake and put that directly with the company logo and the company receipt and the company selling it.
"The Pope says it's not for us to judge, and I agree" but you can say "I'm not making you a blue/blue cake" while also saying "Live your life the way you want. I'm not judging you - that's Gods place. But I'm also not making something in support of something I think is wrong. I love you but I can't support your actions."
"I am a Marine" Ooh-Rah Brother. 2000-2005 and two trips to Iraq. Thank God I was in the back - the dirty POG I am - and I didn't have to actively do anything PTSD inducing.
With that said? Asking for forgiveness means you admit those things were wrong and living Christ-like means that you actively stop doing those things and live the example. I can't judge you for being a "baby killer", a prostitute, an alcoholic, a drug addict, etc (as a Marine? You're probably all of the above /snicker)... but I can say it's wrong and that I won't take actions that endorse your decisions.
I think our disagreement comes from the definition of tolerant - I can tolerate your bad decisions, love you and still tell you that you're wrong. I can accept that it's not my place to judge - but it is my place to live a Christ like example which is accepting that I'm a sinner and you're a sinner. God judges you and I don't... but that doesn't mean I have to implicitly or explicitly support your decisions.
And for this discussion? In America where Religion is a protected class... that means we can't force someone to do something against their religion. We have to accommodate those who want Sunday off. Saturday off. We have to accommodate those who want to wear head gear.
We also have to accommodate those who own companies and don't want their brands associated with something their religion says is harram.
On faith? Majority of the world believes marriage is man+woman. If you force me to make a shirt, website, cake, etc? Thats making me create something that endorses that idea.
You can't claim to support freedom if you support forcing others to take part in stuff they disagree with.
Can you articulate how forcing someone to do something they think is morally wrong or evil isn't slavery?
Something about the situation in general feels wrong. There is no balance. The customer is allowed to be discriminating in where they choose to shop, but the storeowner is not allowed to choose who they accept the liabilities of doing business from. This sets a bad precedent in enabling customer thuggery.
I feel like the same rights should be afforded to both parties, but it leads to situations like you suggest, which isn't right either. I don't know where the middle ground is.
I agree they are very clear violations of the Hippocratic Oath. We're way down the slope though.
The answer in both cases is a firm no.
Care to elaborate there?
What other lifestyle do you think is on conversation here?
You have the right to live how you want. Fuck who you want. Dress how you want. Etc.
You don't have the right to force others to support that lifestyle - especially "artists" who do stuff like make cakes and websites.
If you force me to do stuff that goes against my religion or deeply held beliefs - whatever the topic - then you're wrong.
Religion is a protected class as are the beliefs held by religious people.