A
abucs
Guest
Well the Democratic Party has many sins. Some they have got over thankfully, but then others they have created which is not helpful.
- Status
A
abucs
Guest
Well I do not see it so much as refusing to offer services for gay people, as not wanting to support a practice that some see as antithetical to their religious belief. It is not a belief that I would hold but I think it is immoral for the state to dictate to business owners what their products should be.
I think the law is being expanded to be a substitute religion and this is not helpful. There will only ever be conflict if the Left continue down this path of enforced identity politics directed by the state.
D
dvdjs
Guest
It’s hard to imagine a more ignorant response. It that was your goal, congratulations.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Actually please remember that this discussion was sparked up by this:
We are talking about ANY REASON.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Well said!
A
abucs
Guest
No, honestly I congratulate the Democrats for eventually agreeing with Republicans regarding civil rights for negro Americans. It took a little while but you got there. That’s something we should all celebrate.
L
lmachine
Guest
It can be both. If the baker feels her religion is important to her she can choose to find a line of work that doesn’t involve providing services that violate her religious belief.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
It is tyranny for the government to tell businesses who they can and can’t do business with unless a foreign entity is under some kind of sanctions by the federal government.
Consumer choice for all!
Consumer choice for all!
D
dvdjs
Guest
I believe that we have had this conversation on you lack of knowledge of American history before.
The civil rights legislation of the 1960’s was transformational not only for the justice in the nation but for the political landscape. The residue of white supremacy and intolerance is now completely owned by the Republicans - whatever their roots. A simple look at voting patterns makes this unmistakably clear. To miss this fundamental point is woefully ignorant or worse.
A
abucs
Guest
The problem with this Imachine is twofold
]
- It is dictatorial. It is saying that unless you agree with the state sponsored morals then the state will dictate which businesses you are not allowed to participate in
- With the expansion of the state sponsored politically correct religion the number of professions you will not allow people who disagree with you from entering become basically every profession - bakers, florists, photography, medical, psychiatry, teaching, media, probably ending in politics
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Bakers can also keep baking but opt out of the Wedding Industrial Complex. I haven’t heard of anyone being unwilling to bake birthday cakes for discriminatory reasons.
Seriously, people who saw providing the trappings for wedding receptions as some kind of a calling in support of solid marriages are at a serious crossroads. Secular law has chosen to recognize as a marriage even more unions that the Church does not recognize as marriages, and this time recognizes unions that distort the meaning of marriage itself. Those of us who built careers wholly or partly based on the true meaning of marriage are now confronted with whether or not continuing in their professions will require what they feel is complicity with an evil.
I have sympathy for that. When in the world, however, we are bound to follow the laws laid down by legitimate authority, unless we truly have no option open that reconciles our faith and abiding by civil law. Some of us are going to feel we have to change careers or our business plans in order to accomodate both, sometimes at a great personal cost.
There is no help for it, though. Accepting the wrong-headed choices of others is the price we pay for being in a society where others are forced to accept what they believe is our wrong-headedness. There will be no ultimate Judgment of who was really right and who was really wrong-headed in this life; that is why this is a vale of tears.
A
abucs
Guest
No that is your prejudice. Is there a political party anywhere that has the great history of being formed specifically to end the slavery of another race, whose first President went to war to free those slaves, who welcomed negro political representatives in their ranks in droves, who drafted the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution to abolish slavery and provide civil and voting rights to negroes.
Now it is true that the Democrats were the bad guys in all that. They opposed each of those political measures and of course fought to retain slavery.
To try and put those sins on Republicans because at the moment many of those Democratic supporting descendants support the more principled Republican political party does not make sense.
Republicans opposed slavery and treating people differently because of race, They still do and they have largely won the argument. They fought against racist Democrats both north and south. For example, in 1865 when Republicans voted to abolish slavery 100% of Republicans voted for this In the House in contrast only 23% of NORTHERN DEMOCRATS voted to abolish slavery.
One of the new sins of the Democratic Party is to try and pass their old sins onto ‘people of the south’ or ‘whites generally’ or God hep us ‘the Republican Party’.
Own your political parties sins and stop trying to invent a world where you see Nazis everywhere and place your sins on the good guys of history like the insane antifa movement.
As far as the south voting Republican today we should be happy that the Republicans won the argument regarding race so thoroughly.
The Democrats trying to transfer their sins
D
dvdjs
Guest
Thanks for a thoughtful post.
I have sympathy for that hard choice as well. It may be that some leagl middle ground may be developed that assimilates cake decorating to art and artistic expression; and free speech. But I am doubtful.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Nothing “pre” about my judgment.
You have stipulated to the change of the orientations of the political parties over time with a variety of posted in the threads about Charlottesville and its fall-out. Now you have retreated.
You can link to all of the alt-right propaganda that you want (Prager U???), it doesn’t do a thing for your argument which is so obviously falsified by the voting practices since the civil rights era.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s generic in the sense that it just has words on it.
No depiction of a man and a boy.
And let’s say that this boy is of the age of consent, so it’s legal.
Would you make a cake for this celebration?
P
PRmerger
Guest
One is a fictitious event, just like the ordination of a female priest.
The other is an event.
A
abucs
Guest
Retreating how?
The voting records are clear. Dismissing it as alt right propaganda is actually retreating from the discussion.
The party policy platforms are clear.
Yes, since the 1970’s the Democrats are no longer racist against negroes. The Republicans won that argument.
The Democrats today have started a new racist agenda with ‘white privilege’ rhetoric and ‘affirmative action’. Now in context with the Democrats historical sins its not so bad, but it still needs to be addressed.
Trying to see the Republicans today as racist because it doesn’t signup to the Left’s new religion of insane political correctness is not credible.
Deal with your sins and stop trying to blame others.
D
dvdjs
Guest
That is not the history.
That’s better. Not the Republicans have won the argument, but they have filled the vacuum.
What are my sins?
B
Borealis
Guest
The same way it’s been done for centuries in America: You don’t want to serve me for whatever reason? Fine. I’ll go to someone else who will, and I’ll tell my friends not to patronize your establishment. When enough people stop coming to your business, you won’t be making any money.
That won’t work for the gay lobby, because their numbers aren’t enough to impact a business’ bottom line. So they resort to intimidation and lawfare to ruin businesses that don’t pay homage to the Gaystapo.
D
dvdjs
Guest
That is not the way it was done.
- Status