A
abucs
Guest
Yes I would imagine they do.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
lmachine
Guest
well whadya knowYes I would imagine they do.
A
abucs
Guest
well I don’t know, that’s why I said I imagine they do.well whadya know
L
lmachine
Guest
Then Republicans are doing a poor job of not controlling personal autonomy through slavery.well I don’t know, that’s why I said I imagine they do.
A
abucs
Guest
No I disagree. Republicans have been fantastically successful against slavery like perhaps no other political party on the planet.Then Republicans are doing a poor job of not controlling personal autonomy through slavery.
As far as detaining people through the prison system and how that affects personal autonomy we can have that discussion if you like?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Not a simple question.another deflection. What do you think of the recently introduced concept of ‘white privilege’ and how it is being used to divide people based on race? Simple question.
L
lmachine
Guest
except for the prison slavesNo I disagree. Republicans have been fantastically successful against slavery like perhaps no other political party on the planet.
G
gracepoole
Guest
So the Republican Party is (gasp) into being authoritarian by denying me my wish to own slaves?An ideology of small government AND personal autonomy for all protects against any re-introduction of slavery.
The Republican Party has ensured that no, you are not going to control other’s personal autonomy through slavery any more.
Personal autonomy is important. Hence todays opposition to big government. The Republicans are consistently applying their principles. I support them in doing that.
A
abucs
Guest
So are you comfortable in telling people that slavery is the same as detaining criminals?except for the prison slaves
D
dvdjs
Guest
Their acceptance was hardly genuine. They needed the votes and may have been the only reason LBJ signed the law in the first place.
I can assure you that most of these leftists don’t care one bit about minorities and would not give one cent of their own money to help.
- LBJ knew and state that in advancing this legislation that the Democrats woudl lose the erstwhile solid south.
- Your assurance is valueless.
A
abucs
Guest
No, it is supporting the greater principle of personal autonomy. You are being authoritarian in believing you have a right over others autonomy.So the Republican Party is (gasp) into being authoritarian by denying me my wish to own slaves?
A
ATraveller
Guest
Many don’t have the intent to force anyone out of anything but there are activists who do. Political activists get involved in these incidents and ordinary people including litigants are pawns. The focus isn’t the baking industry but anywhere they can force Christians out. The goal is to make things as miserable as they can for Christians. It’s important to recognize this as an example of being despised for following Christ.Let us be frank, here: Nobody is trying to force Christians out of the bakery trade. Consider how many Christian denominations now ENDORSE the idea of marriage between persons of the same sex!! The evil one has sown a great deal of confusion surrounding this issue. People who think they really do have a right to marry and that God’s plan for marriage has been the target of human prejudice for centuries are of course going to defend what they believe to be their rights and they’re going to feel victimized if they are singled out for discrimination.
It is like the issue of abortion. If you swallow the lie that a person is not a person prior to birth, then of course it is a matter of the right of personal determination. If you twist the foundational principles of a principled person, they’ll be just as adamant about protecting false rights as they are about the real ones.
In the case of the Oregon bakery that was hit with one of these suits, the customer was a long-time customer who wanted a cake from THAT bakery. She was crushed when she couldn’t have one and she felt she had been treated unjustly. Just going somewhere where her business was welcome didn’t cut it for her, because she thought in America that ought to be the customer’s decision, not the merchant’s.
G
gracepoole
Guest
You seem to have difficulty recognizing that some kinds of discrimination (attending a Catholic Church, not eating lima beans, etc.) are acceptable while other kinds (selectively discriminating against community members after being licensed by the community to serve all) aren’t.No, you used the word discrimination without distinction.
A
abucs
Guest
No, I am criticising the use of the word discrimination without using a distinction.You seem to have difficulty recognizing that some kinds of discrimination (attending a Catholic Church, not eating lima beans, etc.) are acceptable while other kinds (selectively discriminating against community members after being licensed by the community to serve all) aren’t.
As far as people discriminating in so many ways, there is not acceptance by everyone on which are rightful and which are wrongful.
G
gracepoole
Guest
If bakers want autonomy, more power to them. What they can’t have is the autonomy to selectively discriminate if they are licensed to serve all. And that’s the sticking point. They can give up their license or go off the reservation and stop using community resources.No, it is supporting the greater principle of personal autonomy. You are being authoritarian in believing you have a right over others autonomy.
L
lmachine
Guest
I’m comfortable in acknowledging that the 13th Amendment makes slavery legal if someone is convicted of a crime. People like to ignore it but slavery is alive and well today.So are you comfortable in telling people that slavery is the same as detaining criminals?
G
gracepoole
Guest
A distinction was made. One form (deciding where to worship) is acceptable because it does not involve being licensed to attend all places of worship. One form (deciding not to serve some when baking wedding cakes) is not because it involves being licensed to serve all.No, I am criticising the use of the word discrimination without using a distinction.
A
abucs
Guest
and again I say you are being authoritarian in trying to dictate what livelihoods people can participate in and who can use community resources.If bakers want autonomy, more power to them. What they can’t have is the autonomy to selectively discriminate if they are licensed to serve all. And that’s the sticking point. They can give up their license or go off the reservation and stop using community resources.
A
abucs
Guest
a distinction was made after the fact. Not at the time of the posting.A distinction was made. One form (deciding where to worship) is acceptable because it does not involve being licensed to attend all places of worship. One form (deciding not to serve some when baking wedding cakes) is not because it involves being licensed to serve all.
L
lmachine
Guest
It is very authoritarian to expect people to follow the rules they voluntarily agreed to.and again I say you are being authoritarian.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.