Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is interesting how we treat "business." If it suits our argument, we view business as a living, breathing entity having human attributes(similar to how progressives view the Constitution), and therefor must be beholden the same strictures as individual human beings. But when we punish business for transgressing human values we personally hold sacred, or legally we deem criminal, we don't put "business" in jail, we incarcerate specific, actual, human beings.

It is convenient to centralize individual human "rights" into a general category of business "rights," and, so, overlook any individual rights that actual humans possess when they interface with other actual humans and their individual rights when they are engaged in "business." Notwithstanding that all human interaction is a form of "business." So, is it only in those "business" interactions which involve a transfer of money that actual humans must relinquish their personal rights?

What is the magical distinction that allows us to have individual unalienable rights so long as no money is involved? Do you believe we do, as individuals, have unalienable rights? Or that we have only those rights which the government allows us to have?

Is it not a "slippery slope" when we begin to say you have unalienable rights . . . except . . . ?

And if we do actually have individual unalienable rights, even when those are actually specified in the Constitution, and when the practice of those rights don't deny others the practice of theirs, must we subject ours to theirs if they offer money for our services? Are we not allowed to say, no thanks.

Getting a little far off the topic of a group of people being able to express themselves at a public event here...

But the issue as I see it is that people are trying to use religion to support a discriminatory attitude towards a group of people in our society. If we allow "religions freedom" to be an excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law and justify that with the first amendment, what is to stop someone from establishing a religion for any kind of discrimination they feel they should be free to support?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Getting a little far off the topic of a group of people being able to express themselves at a public event here...

But the issue as I see it is that people are trying to use religion to support a discriminatory attitude towards a group of people in our society. If we allow "religions freedom" to be an excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law and justify that with the first amendment, what is to stop someone from establishing a religion for any kind of discrimination they feel they should be free to support?

So what you are saying, is that if someone can claim that their feelings are hurt, then the constitution doesn't apply to the person causing the hurt feelings? It cannot work that way. THAT is a slippery slope.

Using your logic, going back to my example, a black photographer would have to legal basis for refusing to work at a Klan rally. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If it's perfectly legal for the Klan to hold a rally, then according to your logic, a black photographer would be forced by law to work there.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Using your logic, going back to my example, a black photographer would have to legal basis for refusing to work at a Klan rally. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If it's perfectly legal for the Klan to hold a rally, then according to your logic, a black photographer would be forced by law to work there.

Man... I didn't see it that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Man... I didn't see it that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How can you claim to not see it that way? Here's what you said, your words...

"I believe business is different. I don't support a business's right to discriminate based on the personal preferences of their patrons when those personal preferences are not criminal."

Pretend the business is a black photographer. The patron is a Klansmen who, despite his offensive beliefs, isn't breaking any laws.

So how can the black photographer say 'no' to the Klansmen, based on your words that I posted?

You can't have it both ways...If the Christian photographer cannot say 'no' to a gay wedding, then the black photographer cannot say 'no' to the Klansmean.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How can you claim to not see it that way?

I think Detbuch explained this for you as succinctly as could be done just a couple of posts previous...

"The problem in most discussions like these is when they have no common basic principle on which the discussion revolves, or is about. "But the issue as I see it" creates unfocussed discussion which cannot be resolved when arguers "see it" differently. Having no unifying principles on which all agree leaves all to expound on and adhere to their personal vision. There can be no agreement, and the discussion goes round and round, eventually saying the same things over and over . . . ad infinitum . . . pointlessly. There is no point on which agreement can be reached, there is only personal opinion."

this is a very interesting read (apologies to Spence for "cutting and pasting" the link)
http://www.americanthinker.com/asset...014_15_41.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think Detbuch explained this for you as succinctly as could be done just a couple of posts previous...

"The problem in most discussions like these is when they have no common basic principle on which the discussion revolves, or is about. "But the issue as I see it" creates unfocussed discussion which cannot be resolved when arguers "see it" differently. Having no unifying principles on which all agree leaves all to expound on and adhere to their personal vision. There can be no agreement, and the discussion goes round and round, eventually saying the same things over and over . . . ad infinitum . . . pointlessly. There is no point on which agreement can be reached, there is only personal opinion."

this is a very interesting read (apologies to Spence for "cutting and pasting" the link)
http://www.americanthinker.com/asset...014_15_41.html

Interesting indeed. Really points out the blueprint which has been followed to create a new "reality."

It's a beautiful article. Beautiful to me because it rings of truth, not agenda. And truth is the soul of knowledge, whereas agenda is more often the kernel of deception. And, as Keats wrote in his "Ode on a Grecian Urn," "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Where it really started to get "beautiful" for me is when somewhere about third to halfway into the essay the author says "We gays and Lesbians"--until that I had assumed, since it was what sounded to me up to that point like another discourse against a homosexual agenda, that the author was straight. I wasn't sure, at that point, if he was really referring to himself, but toward the end he verifies it.

It is always a beautiful experience for me when in a discussion with someone of a different race or "sexual persuasion", or a believer in some religion, or someone of a particular ethnic persuasion, the concept of individual freedom in a political or governmental sense is agreed to in a fundamental sense which transcends personal differences. Then there is a foundation for agreement. And that is a beautiful thing.

When there is no unifying principle around which we can discuss, then there is no possibility of agreement. Without a common foundation, we are afloat in a sea of disagreement, and susceptible to the suasions of tyrants who promise to override our differences with the power of the State rather than we self governing ourselves with the common purpose that we respect our differences.

The article is a beautiful, truthful thing in that it transcends a wedge agenda and appeals to rational discourse. But too bad you had to cut and paste it--according to Spence that just relegates it to being a rag, demolishes it into a yawn.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Interesting indeed. Really points out the blueprint which has been followed to create a new "reality."

Does it point out a "blueprint which has been followed" or simply present a very prescient and well thought out theory?

Has is created a "new reality" or perhaps instead simply normalized reality?

The book was written in a post AIDS environment when the issues were more in your face (i.e. the era Jim is still stuck in). Today for the most part you don't need to be told someone is "here" and "queer" because most people just don't care.

Now that's something to celebrate in a parade.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what you are saying, is that if someone can claim that their feelings are hurt, then the constitution doesn't apply to the person causing the hurt feelings? It cannot work that way. THAT is a slippery slope.

Using your logic, going back to my example, a black photographer would have to legal basis for refusing to work at a Klan rally. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If it's perfectly legal for the Klan to hold a rally, then according to your logic, a black photographer would be forced by law to work there.

I think, these days it's been shown that we can just have the president issue waivers to certain people that he doesn't think should be affected by certain laws, that would resolve this situation and depending on how the president felt about other situations and certain parts of certain laws and how certain judges interpret or feel about certain laws for certain people he can just issue waivers as he deems necessary..