you no longer can hold your own values in America

Posted by MaxCasey 11 years, 4 months ago to News
502 comments | Share | Flag

you are no longer able to chose to exercise your values in America. You now run the risk of being forced to become a hypocrite by the government. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, this baker should not be forced to work for people he chooses not too.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 17.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What business was it of Rearden's how his steel was used? What business is it of any artist how his work will be used?

    A "gay wedding" is an oxymoron, a farce, and a perversion of actual wedding.

    Why do leftist scumbags always get to distort (aka, pervert) the meaning of traditional cultural practices, mores and beliefs? "Gay wedding" isn't even accurate; most weddings are gay affairs. "Homosexual wedding", while still oxymoronic, at least reflects what is contradictory in the phrase.

    Either you are a believer in one of the religions that incorporates marriage into its belief system, or you are not. If you belong to one of them, then most likely, such as in the case of Catholicism, Islam, Judaism... marriage is the mating union of a man and a woman for life. If you follow those beliefs, "homosexual marriage" remains an oxymoron, and you're a hypocrite if you try to marry in one of those institutions (church, mosque, temple).

    If you're not a practitioner of such a religion, what is the *point* of "homosexual marriage" other than to force the rest of the world to accept their mental illness as healthy and normal?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 4 months ago
    I'm really curious...

    Just how does a gay wedding impact anyone except the participants?

    The baker isn't going to divorce his wife.

    The baker's kids aren't going to marry the German Sheppard next door (if they do HE brought the kids up wrong).

    What's the worst that can happen? Maybe a gay will look in his window and say the baker is using the wrong table cloth?

    Sheesh... Why is it the baker's business how his cake is used once it goes out the door?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MaxCasey 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    oh there most certainly is. For one, suggesting that someone has the right to purchase goods and services from another yet the other doesn't have the right to deny a sale is a blatant contradiction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the basis of our Constitution rests in "natural" law. Rights are very natural.
    However, maph thinks certain things should be "rights" which should not. For instance, one group does not have the right to FORCE another group to perform. He has not addressed how that is not slavery.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 11 years, 4 months ago
    I have read most of the comments and some good arguments are being made. Problem is, I believe that everyone has the right to freely associate with whoever they want. Whether it be marriage or a business transaction. If I run into someone who does not to do business with me, I take my business somewhere else. I do not claim discrimination or even think a second about why. I just move on and deal with someone who wants my business. That is a big problem with today's society in that if you don't want my business then you are obviously discriminating against me. I am not saying it is wrong, I am saying it is prevalent. In my belief, I think the judge was wrong as the baker is now being forced at the end of a gun to do business with these people. He is being made a slave to government regulation, not a business who can decide who he wants to do business with and it is wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Discrimination is not natural? No kidding... Seriously? you know what IS natural? Doing whatever you feel like, whenever you feel like. Not sacrificing today to build for tomorrow, that is natural. Natural is the state of poverty.

    Unnatural is civilization. Unnatural is going against the grain in this cursed world, doing what the natural world says is not good. Laws are unnatural. Saying you can't physically take from the weaker is unnatural. All these things that are critical to our society.

    NATURAL is tribal societies in Africa. Natural is the majority of American Indians killing eachother when the Europeans arrived. Natural is what happens in the Middle East, where the most powerful murder those who disagree with them. And, this asinine ruling from this idiotic judge is the natural extension of "natural" where those in power force their views on those not in power, just like the Muslims murder the Jews and Christians (and the gays) in the Middle East. That is natural. Congratulations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 11 years, 4 months ago
    Sad state of affairs in this nation. Government is forcing you to support anything and everything, despite your deepest held beliefs.

    I believe they called that "Fascism"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the law is wrong and immoral. I own myself and I own the products of my labor and so therefore I can choose who I sell to. and if I can't, I am nothing but a slave. (you have not addressed this point-I have made it several times. How am I not a lave if you can tell me who I have to sell to?)
    This is the sort of thinking that leads to the idea that govt can discriminate against YOU. If you are a member of a tea party group who's 501C 4 status has been held up, that's what you're thinking. where is their remedy? Haven't seen one yet.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If that harm to someone else results in a tort, they already have recourse. Hurt feelings sounds like a personal issue to me. How does it go?
    Sticks and stones....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mind and thought and belief control laws and regulations. Anyone else see this as the antithesis of freedom?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -4
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It actually seems to be working out pretty well, for the most part. A few bumps in the road here and there, but overall pretty good. The government can be responsive to humans, as well.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A business owner does not have the right to choose his customers if he's selling to the general public.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And tell me, how do you expect to maintain a peaceful and orderly society when one man may legally mistreat and abuse another without consequence? A man may certainly behave immorally if he wants, but if his immoral actions cause harm to someone else, then he must be held legally accountable for that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed, it is force. I've said before that I have no respect for anarchy. It is not possible for people to peacefully cooperate on a large scale without some level of government coercion, not even in the realm of business.

    Laws and regulations are not the antithesis of freedom, but rather the legal shield by which freedoms are protected. Without any legal code to lay down the line regarding what a man may not do, those who are harmed by the actions of another would have no legal recourse for seeking justice.

    Please see this topic:
    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/28...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I suppose I am conflicted on an emotional level - I do have mixed feelings about Ayn Rand. However, there is no logical contradiction in anything I've said.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo