Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment! Algorithm free!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 50 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner (Read 6,110 times)
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 19,747
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #260 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 11:19am
Print Post  
Rabbit_Reborn wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 11:12am:
You and your White privilege! Smiley


Actually, I am white, but I was also the son of an immigrant (hence my knowledge of several languages) and the receiver of some ethnic racism, from teenagers mostly, and in petty ways, however, it never manifested itself in the way of me being refused service or the access to college education.
  

Queshank wrote on Oct 25th, 2018 at 9:13am:
FC,

I've been thinking about how I can respond conversationally without coming across as a total dick.

Queshank
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Queshank
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 6,946
Location: South Dakota
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2015
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #261 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 1:20pm
Print Post  
Rabbit_Reborn wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 11:12am:
Ah. My mistake. I actually mis-interpreted your post.

You're closer to being correct.

It's not just Bronze Age, it's likely far older than that.

Revulsion at homosexual behavior is something that can be measured; and likely has evolutionary origins, not just cultural.

We're back to discussing the open-minded, naïve, innovative tribal liberal and the closed-minded, suspicious, guardian tribal conservative. Both were needed back then, and I would argue still needed today (minus the partisan aspects of them), and we shouldn't be surprised that they both exist.


I guess as I read the thread I can't just butt out.  Because this is still an issue that confuses the hell out of me and where I am experiencing some major cognitive dissonance as two of my beliefs find themselves at odds with each other.

But here's the problem.  And why I balk at "normalizing" 7th Century BCE philosophical and moral thought.

We have already eradicated a large part of that philosophical thought.  We no longer let fathers execute their daughters for lying about being virgins when they get married as the Old Testament instructs us.  Very few husbands make their wives sleep in a separate bed or house while they're on their "period" and afterwards for the requisite two week ritual cleansing period.  Very few people have a real problem with eating shellfish or wearing polyester.  We don't think it's okay to execute people for hammering a nail on the Sabbath.

And a few of those are no longer practiced because state laws got in the way.  We won't let you murder your daughter for misleading her future husband.

If we are going to argue about toes being private property, it doesn't take much to argue that children are the property of parents.  I created my children.  No community or government helped.  I'm responsible for them until they're 18.  I'm liable for them until they're 18.  In a way ... they are my property until they're 18.  If we're going to go with ancient philosophies, what's wrong with arguing the ancient custom of paterfamilias as the sole responsible party having complete control over his progeny to the point of being able to execute disappointing children?  (In the immortal words of Bill Cosby ... "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!"  Ah Bill Cosby.  You son of a bitch.)

Would the state be interfering with someone's rights if they prevent a father from killing his daughter?   And if we don't think the fact that we no longer do that isn't as a result of a "meddling state," then I'll point to UN statistics that suggest in the Middle East there are still approximately 5,000 of these honor killings annually because their states haven't prevented it and are okay with it.

That same text can be used to make a compelling argument and rationalization for why women are the property of their husbands if we really want to get into the weeds on property rights.

That really is the rub for me.  This would not be a conversation or a thing that's even happening if certain people weren't still paying lipservice to a select few of the ancient practices and traditions we as a society have been tolerating.  We're simply reaching the point where like all the others, this is a belief we're not real tolerant of.  I'm not sure I can see where that's a bad thing.

If this were 50 years from now, a conversation about private property wouldn't even be happening because there wouldn't be an asshole out there trying to make a principled stand for an issue nobody gives a shit about to get their 15 minutes of fame, and therefore wouldn't have thought it was a good idea to refuse service to customers because a book written twenty five hundred years ago says we shouldn't like them.  I don't think we can pretend that isn't the entire basis for this discussion.

Queshank
  

BowHunter wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 10:24am:
I am not aware of any article
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 19,747
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #262 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 2:13pm
Print Post  
I thought this debate would be a piece of cake.
  

Queshank wrote on Oct 25th, 2018 at 9:13am:
FC,

I've been thinking about how I can respond conversationally without coming across as a total dick.

Queshank
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rabbit_Reborn
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online

2015 Poster of the Year.
Election stolen 2016.

Posts: 23,729
Location: Midwest
Joined: Oct 17th, 2005
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #263 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:24pm
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 1:20pm:
If we're going to go with ancient philosophies, what's wrong with arguing the ancient custom of paterfamilias as the sole responsible party having complete control over his progeny to the point of being able to execute disappointing children?  (In the immortal words of Bill Cosby ... "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!"  Ah Bill Cosby.  You son of a bitch.)

Would the state be interfering with someone's rights if they prevent a father from killing his daughter?   And if we don't think the fact that we no longer do that isn't as a result of a "meddling state," then I'll point to UN statistics that suggest in the Middle East there are still approximately 5,000 of these honor killings annually because their states haven't prevented it and are okay with it.

I don't think the fact that there are fathers still murdering their daughters in Afghanistan is proof that the state is responsible for eradicating this behavior.

People don't believe that killing one's daughter for honor is immoral now because of a long and arduous effort by the state to erase this belief from the minds of the citizenry.

I don't believe this at all.

I think it's far more likely that this behavior is gone because of the same reason we discussed a few days ago: reduction in scarcity and an increase in the ease of existence.

In smaller, tribal communities in far less advanced societies, reputation within a community is of extreme importance. The killing of some slutty daughter (I can't believe I'm joking about this) was likely an attempt to save reputation in an era or in an location where the entire family could suffer devastating consequences from a rapid decline in reputation.

This is no longer the case in western societies. I really 100% don't believe that the state is responsible for saving us from this tendency. As societies become more affluent, children are seen as less of an "asset". I'm not saying people didn't love their children 5,000 years ago, but there was more of an element of investment / asset.

Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 1:20pm:
If this were 50 years from now, a conversation about private property wouldn't even be happening because there wouldn't be an asshole out there trying to make a principled stand for an issue nobody gives a shit about to get their 15 minutes of fame, and therefore wouldn't have thought it was a good idea to refuse service to customers because a book written twenty five hundred years ago says we shouldn't like them.  I don't think we can pretend that isn't the entire basis for this discussion.

I can absolutely "pretend" that the Bible isn't the "entire basis for this discussion".

I mentioned before that revulsion to homosexual behavior likely has some element of genetics, or at least a cultural component that is far more than just the Bible. You think the authors (and editors) of the Bible were the first to decide that homosexuality was perverse or immoral? The Code of Assura from the Assyrian Empire, which actually was bronze age, had rules that illustrated contempt for homosexual behavior.

These were simply the first to write it down. I can't believe that the first people to write anything down also happened to be the first to think homosexuality was immoral. No, far more likely that they were simply writing down what was already traditionally believed. The Assyrians and the Jews and Christians were/are remarkably successful.

I'm open to the possibility that there is an element of natural selection at play. Certainly, it's possible that societies of ancient times that had a sub-population that had a natural revulsion to homosexuality had some sort of advantage over other societies.

That doesn't mean gay people should suffer now when things like disease are more easily contained and concern over the continuation of our species is long forgotten (because make no mistake, humanity has gone through multiple episodes where the existence of the species was in question. It isn't helpful to have a bunch of homosexuals around at that point).

I don't want to force association between two people, even if one of the individual's reasons for not wanting to associate are completely f***ing stupid. But I also don't like the idea of forcing association between two people when one of them has a very real and natural revulsion to that person's behavior. Doesn't mean I hate gays. It doesn't mean I am for aggression in any way. I just don't want to use the state to force people to interact with people they do not want to interact with.
  

Wadsworth wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 3:40pm:
You are awfully concerned about who gets to live.  Why is it so important to you?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 19,747
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #264 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:43pm
Print Post  
Rabbit, I can't believe the stupid shit that you keep pompously presenting as if you were some sort of authority. The Greek thought nothing of homosexuality. Plato speaks of it very often in his writings without any kind of restraint. And yet contrary to your ASSumptions, the Greeks were very successful as a civilization. So much so in fact, that the Hellenistic philosophy had a great influence over the Christian writers of medieval times and the Renaissance IN SPITE of that open-mindedness of the Greeks for homosexuality.

If that is not a mark of success then not many things are.
  

Queshank wrote on Oct 25th, 2018 at 9:13am:
FC,

I've been thinking about how I can respond conversationally without coming across as a total dick.

Queshank
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Queshank
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 6,946
Location: South Dakota
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2015
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #265 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:49pm
Print Post  
Rabbit_Reborn wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:24pm:
I don't think the fact that there are fathers still murdering their daughters in Afghanistan is proof that the state is responsible for eradicating this behavior.

People don't believe that killing one's daughter for honor is immoral now because of a long and arduous effort by the state to erase this belief from the minds of the citizenry.

I don't believe this at all.

I think it's far more likely that this behavior is gone because of the same reason we discussed a few days ago: reduction in scarcity and an increase in the ease of existence.

In smaller, tribal communities in far less advanced societies, reputation within a community is of extreme importance. The killing of some slutty daughter (I can't believe I'm joking about this) was likely an attempt to save reputation in an era or in an location where the entire family could suffer from a rapid decline in reputation was devastating.

This is no longer the case in western societies. I really 100% don't believe that the state is responsible for saving us from this tendency. As societies become more affluent, children are seen as less of an "asset". I'm not saying people didn't love their children 5,000 years ago, but there was more of an element of investment / asset.


While I completely understand what you're saying here, that's not exactly what I was getting at.  I'm not arguing state law prevents people from killing their children and that's the only reason we don't.  In fact a big part of the reason we don't can be claimed by Christianity itself.

People create laws to reflect the type of society they want. 

In the Middle East they're okay with this kind of treatment of women.  So they don't worry so much about using the laws to prevent it because the law is a reflection of the beliefs of their society.

When these states pass laws outlawing discrimination based on sexuality, they are doing the same thing.  Reflecting the overarching philosophy of their society.   The whole reason that law got passed in Colorado (the other big controversy on this) is a majority of Coloradans wanted it.  Instead of a law saying "You can't murder your daughter" they're passing a law saying "If you want to do business in our community, you have to do business with everyone" to reflect their beliefs and the kind of society they want.

These cake owners have a right to not sell a single cake to anyone in the world.  They can just eat them themselves if they want and get a job delivering milk.  No state entity is forcing them to do things they don't want with their property.  Their desire to have a special place in society as a business is what is forcing them to do things they don't want with their property.  I can't get past that.

And I do think societies have a right to do that.  I think it's a rather flimsy rational to lean on property rights when the whole purpose of the cake owner is to get rid of the cake in the first place.  It just doesn't have the same "crappity smacking government controlling people" bite to it as so many other issues where you and I would probably agree.

I'm with you completely on your breakdown of how and why we are more tolerant of homosexuals now than at any other time in history.  And it basically seems like an argument that suggests we need to just wait .. say ... another 50 years for the last of the people who want to "hate the other amongst us" have died off.  But some of us don't have 50 years and I'm inclined to let them fight for justice before then.

I mean try this on for size Rabbit as an intellectual argument.  Make a libertarian argument for discrimination of homosexuals.  Flip the script and tell me how "property rights" justifies treating some citizens in an unequal manner to others based on circumstances completely out of those citizens control.  Skin color.  Sex.  Hair color.  Sexual proclivity.  Is it really just freedom of association? (That's walking away from property rights, no?)  Everyone has a right to be an asshole and a community is powerless to say "We won't accept this?"  Do we really have to let the market bear it out?  That's the only approved libertarian stance?

The market is far too easily influenced by the nonstate for me to be comfortable with justifying second class citizens.  There are three factors in guaranteeing one business's success over another's.  1- Location, 2- Location, and 3- Location.  (Hence the single bridal shop in my town and their longevity)  I'm just not convinced that's a sound rationale for letting people with prime real estate decide who they're going to allow full citizen status.

Queshank
  

BowHunter wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 10:24am:
I am not aware of any article
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Queshank
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 6,946
Location: South Dakota
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2015
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #266 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm
Print Post  
Quote:
I can absolutely "pretend" that the Bible isn't the "entire basis for this discussion".

I mentioned before that revulsion to homosexual behavior likely has some element of genetics, or at least a cultural component that is far more than just the Bible. You think the authors (and editors) of the Bible were the first to decide that homosexuality was perverse or immoral? The Code of Assura from the Assyrian Empire, which actually was bronze age, had rules that illustrated contempt for homosexual behavior.

These were simply the first to write it down, and the Assyrians and the Jews and Christians were/are remarkably successful.

I'm open to the possibility that there is an element of natural selection at play. Certainly, it's possible that societies of ancient times that had a sub-population that had a natural revulsion to homosexuality had some sort of advantage over other societies.


No I don't believe the writers of the Bible were the first.  But I don't think bronze age denizens had a real clear picture of human nature.

If we're talking about the evolution of sexual practices it begs the question, what role does evolution have in masturbation? 

What role does evolution have in enticing so many mammals to engage in homosexual behavior?  I mean we can argue it's just animals getting their rocks off with a complicit partner.  But I'm really not sure how we can point to evolution when there are so many examples of homosexuality in nature.

Quote:
That doesn't mean gay people should suffer now when things like disease are more easily contained and concern over the continuation of our species is long forgotten (because make no mistake, humanity has gone through multiple episodes where the existence of the species was in question. It isn't helpful to have a bunch of homosexuals around at that point).


If we're going to talk about disease, is this an indicator that evolution is actually doing everything in its power to stop heterosexual sex through the spread of diseases like herpes, gonorrhea, and syphilis?  Historically they're far more common than homosexual STDs.  Have we been reading the signals wrong all these years?

Quote:
But I guess I don't like the idea of forcing association between two people when one of them has a very real and natural revulsion to that person's behavior. Doesn't mean I hate gays. It doesn't mean I am for aggression in any way. I just don't want to use the state to force people to interact with people they do not want to interact with.


Right here you're getting into why major urban cities are Democratic and rural pastures are Republican.  As our population grows and there are fewer frontiers for people to escape to, people are going to have to figure out how to get along.  (It's not natural for us.)  One day perhaps very soon cake owners are going to have gay people as neighbors and they'll have to figure it out.  Unless we can rationalize real estate agents refusing to sell to gay couples I guess.

I don't get to choose my neighbors.  Why should this cake owner get to choose his customers on such a flimsy rational as "Me no likee" or "It says in this book written in 700 BCE that I'm not supposed to like you." 

It's just not working for me.  I'm just not sympathetic to someone who doesn't like gays ... "cuz."  Nobody's suggesting they be forced to goto the ball game together.  Nobody's suggesting they be forced to date each other.  But the fact is, the cake owner's children might be going to the same school as the offspring of a gay man/woman.  People are going to have to get used to the fact that gay people exist and get over themselves.

I'm not denying I experience major cognitive dissonance on this issue.  I struggle with it.  I'm arguing these viewpoints really because I want someone to shoot them down easily and tell me what the right answer is. 

When I owned a tax firm, I absolutely did not want someone telling me I had to deal with every single tax client.  When people walk in the door with 10 years of unfiled returns and a god damned shoebox full of notes a decade old that they can't even explain anymore because they can't remember, I absolutely do not want to be required to serve them.  (And that happens more often than you'd think.)  And I engaged in exercises in debate with family members about what do we do when one of them is gay and wants to claim the reason we refused to work with them is they're gay?

I think the state requiring private businesses to ban smoking in their bars and establishments is a bridge too far and the state has no right to do this.

And on the face of things I should be arguing it's a slippery slope of sorts to require cake owners to surrender their choice of clientele in the name of something as nebulous and creepy as "The Greater Good." 

But ... I can't get past the rational the cake owner is using and my lack of respect for it.  It seems to me that every logical, sane person should be saying with a great deal of sarcasm "Really?  That's your problem you asshole?"  And a little secret ... I've never met a gay person I actually like on a personal level.  The personality clashes are too extreme.  (Kill me now leftists!  Kill me now!)

Frankly the person I'm pissed at the most is the asshole cake owner for causing this crisis of consciousness.  Libertarian thought and freedom itself might never recover from the damage they're doing in the name of their God.

Queshank
  

BowHunter wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 10:24am:
I am not aware of any article
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 19,747
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #267 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:15pm
Print Post  
Seriously, Secondhand smoking kills enough people and shorten the lives of enough people that I definitely think that the state has a duty to step in. It's not fair to let people poison unsuspecting bystanders in the name of some weird idea of freedom.

The freedom to kill people just for being there...
  

Queshank wrote on Oct 25th, 2018 at 9:13am:
FC,

I've been thinking about how I can respond conversationally without coming across as a total dick.

Queshank
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Queshank
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 6,946
Location: South Dakota
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2015
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #268 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:23pm
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm:
Frankly the person I'm pissed at the most is the asshole cake owner for causing this crisis of consciousness.  Libertarian thought and freedom itself might never recover from the damage they're doing in the name of their God.

Queshank


I feel like I need to expand on that.

Because the fact is ... this is a losing battle.  And by jumping in on the side of the cake owner, there's another association I'm more worried about than freedom of association.  And that's guilt by association. 

There is no circumstance where in the long run, the cake owners win this fight. 

Queshank
  

BowHunter wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 10:24am:
I am not aware of any article
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 19,747
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #269 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:48pm
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:23pm:
I feel like I need to expand on that.

Because the fact is ... this is a losing battle.  And by jumping in on the side of the cake owner, there's another association I'm more worried about than freedom of association.  And that's guilt by association. 

There is no circumstance where in the long run, the cake owners win this fight. 

Queshank


In some of these cases, the long run can mean decades. The cake owner may never know that he's lost the battle.
  

Queshank wrote on Oct 25th, 2018 at 9:13am:
FC,

I've been thinking about how I can respond conversationally without coming across as a total dick.

Queshank
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 50
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
A1 News Page
David Limbaugh
Political Frog
Conservatives Directory
President Trump Approval Poll
Presidential Party Election Poll News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules