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!
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 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 49 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner (Read 3,709 times)
wyattstorch2004
LNF Speaker
*****
Online

GO CUBS

Posts: 12,703
Joined: May 11th, 2004
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #270 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 7:28pm
Print Post  
Limey. wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 5:28am:
It’s an interesting diversion in to different cake territory whe Rabbit asks about my cake with pictures of beer on it (what are you implying, you cheeky bastard? Angry ) but not the point.


I did that!

Quote:
The exclusion of people because of innate or chosen characteristics -being a Communist, or a Republican, or gay, or black-  is absolutely a hostile act.  One cake shop doing it? Well, meh. No big deal.

But, and it’s a big but*, if we as a society say this is OK, we’re opening the door to exclusion from all sorts of things that are more significant than cake.  I mean, I like cake but there are bigger issues.


Society doesn't have to say it is OK.  Just legal.  Society, through the individual members of it, can refuse to frequent that business.  They can work together to compete and provide the services the not-OK business refuses.

You claim that everyone agrees that these sorts of refusals are abhorrent out of one side of your mouth, and out of the other, you speak in fear that everyone and their mother will start turning away gays from every service, leaving them catastrophically excluded from society.  This just isn't reality.

BowHunter wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 10:56am:
What if the person is waiting for their change and you ask them to leave?

What are their/your "legitimate" options in a situation like that?


In that case, Rabbit would be holding on to property that contractually belongs to that person.  So he would be able to assert his right to his property back, and I am not sure about Rabbit, but I would say that remaining in the store where the transaction took place until the change is returned is a properly proportioned defense of that person's property which Rabbit is holding.

Quote:
So would I but that doesn't mean that I consider property as some sort of sacrosanct where you can do anything you want. I mean if you use your property to trap underage people for a lewd purpose. Surely even you would think that it is a no-no. There are a few things like that where you'd consider that someone has forfeited his right to not be disturbed by the state. We just disagree on what exactly these things are.


This perfectly illustrates the importance of the libertarian idea of universality when it comes to rights.

Libertarians talk about aggression and trespass.  These are very important concepts.

Rights are limited by the universality of the rights of all individuals.  This means that one cannot do whatever one wants with one's property, because some things one might do would infringe on the rights of another.

This is why it is often said you can do what you wish to your property, but not with your property.

Aggression and trespass are the key concepts and the deciding factors in eliminating any conflict when rights appear to conflict.  Again, rights are universal.  A person's right not to be imprisoned does not infringe on my right to my property.  It certainly limits what I can do with my property.  But that person's right to life and liberty means that I don't have a right to imprison them with my property.  That would be an aggressive act and a trespass against their rights.

Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 1:20pm:
But here's the problem.  And why I balk at "normalizing" 7th Century BCE philosophical and moral thought.


I may have lost track of the conversation, but when you say "normalizing" 7th Century thought, do you mean opposition to homosexuality as with the cake issue?

If so, I would say that legalizing =/= normalizing.  Saying something should be legal is not the same as saying everyone should celebrate that thing.

Quote:
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.


There is some disagreement among libertarians with regard to children, and I would bet you could find some that agree that children are the property of the parents.  I know you could find some that would say that the parents have no right to kill their children, but have every right neglect them due to having zero legal responsibility for providing anything to them (I believe this is Rothbard's stance).

The honor killings are a great example of, at least in terms of my stance, where government is failing to enforce a natural right (which I see as it's only proper purpose).  That is the right to life.  Which I consider children to have from conception (another area of disagreement for libertarians).

Quote:
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.


This is why rights have to be understood and treated as universal.  Equality before the law requires it.  The woman's right to her life provides her (and only her) the right to sell or give of her labor, property or body or parts thereof if she were so inclined.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JohnnyBgood
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
*****
Offline

Im guilty of Locker room
talk too

Posts: 27,461
Location: 94.8 % White Maine
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2012
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #271 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 7:34pm
Print Post  
LGBT hate group got 28 pages? Whats next, the BLM hate group?  Grin
  

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
wyattstorch2004
LNF Speaker
*****
Online

GO CUBS

Posts: 12,703
Joined: May 11th, 2004
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #272 - Feb 13th, 2018 at 7:54pm
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:49pm:
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.


the state is telling them what they can't do.  The state entities are saying, "you can't sell your product unless you comply with X, Y and Z.

To take it to the extreme, if the state said you must chop off a hand in order to be provided a license to open a business, wouldn't that be infringing on your right to operate a business?

The right to work is not a demand for a special place in society.

Not when that special place is used as a choice between A) not operating a business or B) accepting this "special place".

To force this choice is to infringe on rights.

That is what I can't get past.

Quote:
And I do think societies have a right to do that.


Societies don't have rights.  Individuals do.

Quote:
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.


The whole purpose is not to get rid of cake.  It is to maximize the interests of the person participating in the business activity.  As is the case with all transactions and associations (or dissociations).  The business owner that refuses to create the same sex wedding cake is indicating to the market that their interest is diminished by making that sale (people have interests beyond maximizing income).

Quote:
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.


The difference is only in degree.

Quote:
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 property rights justification is the one that has been made throughout this thread.  It is the one that justifies the right to free speech.  It is the one that justifies the right of same sex couples to marry.

The justification is that no person has a right to act violently against the life or property of an individual who has not initiated aggressive force against them.

This does not mean that we have to like the choices of others.  It doesn't mean we have to interact with these people who are racist, sexist, etc.  In fact, the same right that the cake shop owner has to refuse to associate with homosexuals, is the one that every other member of the community has to not associate with that cake maker.  As I stated earlier, these are universal rights.  And universality is such a key component of these rights.

When government can justify eliminating this universality on the basis of "we don't like the way you are making your non-aggressive choices" we open the door to inequality before the law and laws based on the whims of people and not on universal equal rights.  It is how we get Jim Crow, etc.

Quote:
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." 


You don't get to choose your neighbor because there is no transfer of any property to which you have a claim, but you DO get to choose whether you will loan your neighbor your lawn mower.  You DO get to choose whether your neighbor can pay you for a portion of your property to build a deck or a shed.  Even if it is just because you don't like them.

The cake owner gets to choose his customer because the transaction involves a transfer of claim over a piece of property.

Quote:
It's just not working for me.  I'm just not sympathetic to someone who doesn't like gays ... "cuz."


I don't think anyone should be sympathetic to the idea that universality of rights should not apply to people whose reasoning I (or anyone else) disagree with.

Quote:
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.


But don't you have to get over yourself and get used to the fact that these people exist?  And don't you have to understand that your children have to go to school with their offspring?

Quote:
But ... I can't get past the rational the cake owner is using and my lack of respect for it.


Universal rights require that people be allowed to have bad rationale for actions.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rabbit_Reborn
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

2015 Poster of the Year.
Election stolen 2016.

Posts: 21,881
Location: Midwest
Joined: Oct 17th, 2005
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #273 - Feb 14th, 2018 at 2:43pm
Print Post  
BowHunter wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:43pm:
Rabbit, I can't believe the stupid shit that you keep pompously presenting as if you were some sort of authority.

Calm down, maleorder. This is a discussion forum.

BowHunter wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:43pm:
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.
Alexander's ancestors were still in caves when the Assyrians began their empire. The beginning of Assyria was as old to Alexander as Gaius Marius is to us now.

And yet in my post I go yet further. I speak of our tribal past, tens of thousands of years ago. Hundreds of thousands.

I speak of 70,000 years ago, when scientists estimate that the human population could have dropped to around 2,000. I speak of tribes which rarely grew to more than 150 people.

Given the sexual susceptibility in young men that can determine sexual desire throughout life, I can imagine that there may have been a genetic benefit to revulsion towards homosexuality and removal of homosexual behavior from a tribe. Continuation of the species has been in doubt multiple times in our history, and certainly continuation of individual tribes was of importance to them.

That isn't to say we should applaud revulsion towards homosexuality, but it may give insight into why certain people still carry this natural revulsion. If my experience watching the Starz series "Spartacus" is any indication, I likely carry a bit of this natural revulsion myself.
  

None of this is real. Come on. From the micro (you're all Russian bots) to the macro (we're in a simulation of the past from some rich kid in 2813), let's just all agree that our lives are a beautiful fiction.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rabbit_Reborn
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

2015 Poster of the Year.
Election stolen 2016.

Posts: 21,881
Location: Midwest
Joined: Oct 17th, 2005
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #274 - Feb 14th, 2018 at 3:10pm
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:49pm:
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. 

This is true, to a certain extent. I often use a similar argument, and don't hate the classic de Maistre line "Every country has the government it deserves", which has a similar theme.

But:
1. Sometimes this is not the case. A quick example would be federal marijuana laws now.
2. A constitutional republic should not move so whimsically away from founding principles because of popular opinion. If property is private, then the owner has exclusive right by definition (if not the current law), despite opinion to the contrary.
3. It also speaks to the superiority, though definitely not perfection, of a more decentralized state. How should we as Americans base our public opinion and therefore our laws? And should widely varying communities, who 99% of the time interact with others within their communities, be subject to a popular opinion in one section of the country though it differs wildly from the community in question? Should rural Alabama be subject to the larger population centers of the coastal cities? Should Miami have to follow the same rules on social behavior as Anchorage because they had the more popular idea?


Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:49pm:
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.

This is the part that I can't get past:

It is not a "special place in society" to work. It is likely just as common in our society as owning a home. 99.9% of people have to work, or at the least have a very strong desire to work even if they are technically financially secure. It is ingrained in us. This is not "special".

You may have been referring to the ownership of a business? Neither is this special in the sense you are using it. It is a risk. It is hard. It is generally stressful. It is special on the part of the actual owner, but no special thing with regard to history, nor is it some special privilege that society has allowed you to do. To deny this is to buy into a modern leftist mythos.

"Entrepreneurs" have been around forever. In many eras, they were seen as somewhat low to society. Government has taken control of many aspects of business, certainly, but only to broaden its control and ensure its cut.

Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:49pm:
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. 

This is obviously not the "whole purpose of the cake owner". Right? If it was the sole purpose, then the cake owner would have made the cake. But he (or she?) decided not to, because he did not want to use his artistic abilities to create something for a ceremony that he did not believe was moral.

But you wish to have the state force him (or her) to do so. I do not.

This is not a judgment of the behavior of the cake owner. It is a judgment of using the state to force somebody to do something they do not want to do.

I'd rather live in a society where people use discrimination in how they conduct business than in a society where the government can demand labor against one's will, and if that labor is still denied, punish the individual financially or with prison time.

So I find it "rather flimsy rationale" to use "scary discrimination" as justification for using the state to force somebody to perform labor against their will. 

Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 3:49pm:
Make a libertarian argument for discrimination of homosexuals.

After all this time, are you unsure of what libertarianism is?

If I do not want homosexuals (or Japanese people, or French) in my home, am I ok to do that?

And if so, then you are simply a victim of the modern leftist notion that business is somehow separate from other activities in life, and some slice of business should be controlled by the state or the collective. There is no rational justification for this. The type of discrimination here doesn't matter. It just so happens to be homosexuality in this case.
  

None of this is real. Come on. From the micro (you're all Russian bots) to the macro (we're in a simulation of the past from some rich kid in 2813), let's just all agree that our lives are a beautiful fiction.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Rabbit_Reborn
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

2015 Poster of the Year.
Election stolen 2016.

Posts: 21,881
Location: Midwest
Joined: Oct 17th, 2005
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #275 - Feb 14th, 2018 at 3:24pm
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm:
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?

Far more common because heterosexuality is far more common?

Because I've heard that homosexual sex is far more effective at the spread of disease due to the increased likelihood of exposure to blood. This is why AIDS was never really a heterosexual disease, and was far more likely to affect homosexuals and intravenous drug users.

Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm:
One day perhaps very soon cake owners are going to have gay people as neighbors and they'll have to figure it out.

Will they? I dislike a couple of my neighbors. And I would if they were gay and acted in the same way as well. It's not hard to dislike a neighbor. Ask Rand Paul's neighbor.


Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm:
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." 

The rationale doesn't matter.

And either party in the transaction can choose who he will conduct business with. We're only making a big deal about one side of it, but the other side is free to discriminate against the business owner without any fault. This is at the heart of why I keep calling all of this a result of modern leftist thought.

If a gay couple saw an obviously Christian bakery and said "I'm not going there! Jesus freaks!", nobody would bat an eye. A KKK member refuses to enter a shop owned by a black guy. No problem.

It's only the other side that can't discriminate, because business is... bad? Powerful? Needs to be controlled?

One of those.

Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm:
It's just not working for me.  I'm just not sympathetic to someone who doesn't like gays ... "cuz."

Good. Then don't shop there either. Nobody is asking you to be sympathetic towards a homophobic individual. We're asking you not to support the state forcing that person against their will to perform labor.

Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm:
But the fact is, the cake owner's children might be going to the same school as the offspring of a gay man/woman.

So?


Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm:
People are going to have to get used to the fact that gay people exist and get over themselves.

Or what?

Or what?

Queshank wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 4:05pm:
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?

And it's too late. The control has been ceded. You'll have to fight a court battle, or settle out of court, and potentially lose, because property means less than it once did.
  

None of this is real. Come on. From the micro (you're all Russian bots) to the macro (we're in a simulation of the past from some rich kid in 2813), let's just all agree that our lives are a beautiful fiction.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fiddler
LNF Representative2
***
Online

Trolls exterminated while
you wait ...

Posts: 2,502
Joined: Aug 17th, 2017
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #276 - Feb 14th, 2018 at 3:36pm
Print Post  
wyattstorch2004 wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 7:28pm:
You claim that everyone agrees that these sorts of refusals are abhorrent out of one side of your mouth, and out of the other, you speak in fear that everyone and their mother will start turning away gays from every service, leaving them catastrophically excluded from society. 

This just isn't reality.



Actually..  That's been more the reality for millennia ..


wyattstorch2004 wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 7:54pm:
To take it to the extreme, if the state said you must chop off a hand in order to be provided a license to open a business, wouldn't that be infringing on your right to operate a business?



This comment demonstrates Libertarianism's unique ability to self-ridicule..
« Last Edit: Feb 14th, 2018 at 3:42pm by Fiddler »  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seawolf
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 21,778
Joined: Oct 31st, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #277 - Feb 14th, 2018 at 4:19pm
Print Post  
JohnnyBgood wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 7:34pm:
LGBT hate group got 28 pages? Whats next, the BLM hate group?  Grin

You BIGOT!!! Thought I would beat Bow to the punch.
  


"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the DOI
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline


Posts: 18,738
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #278 - Feb 14th, 2018 at 4:22pm
Print Post  
Seawolf wrote on Feb 14th, 2018 at 4:19pm:
You BIGOT!!! Thought I would beat Bow to the punch.


Just because I said that you suck as a human being doesn't mean that you HAVE TO prove me right with each and every one of your statements.
  

When Q hears gallop noises he doesn't think zebras; he thinks there's a Democrat behind a curtain, making gallop noises.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline


Posts: 18,738
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Judge Sticks It to LGBT Activists in Special Ruling for Cake Shop Owner
Reply #279 - Feb 14th, 2018 at 4:28pm
Print Post  
Rabbit_Reborn wrote on Feb 14th, 2018 at 3:24pm:
....

If a gay couple saw an obviously Christian bakery and said "I'm not going there! Jesus freaks!", nobody would bat an eye. A KKK member refuses to enter a shop owned by a black guy. No problem.

It's only the other side that can't discriminate, because business is... bad? Powerful? Needs to be controlled?
....


This doesn't make any sense. How would you know that a (potential) customer discriminated against a shop?
  

When Q hears gallop noises he doesn't think zebras; he thinks there's a Democrat behind a curtain, making gallop noises.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 49
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