Lolsmh no I don't.
It's your scenario, you show how the photographer is breaking the law by denying hog party photo services.
So, for you, it's more the location? Not the religious belief? The studio is a place of business, but refusing to photograph at a gay wedding is ok? That's a fine line to differentiate and the photographer is open to being sued. Small businesses can't afford any lawsuit/bad publicity. In Florida:
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/...ction-bill-law
It's more of a difference of being open and being closed to the general public
It's more about requiring someone to BE somewhere that they don't want to be. It seems like a pretty clear distinction to me.
An unnecessary bill meant to pander to people who feel needlessly threatened by gay marriage. It doesn't apply to businesses run by religious people who oppose gay marriage, only religious organizations (who are already protected under the First Amendment). Not surprising that one of the worst governors in the country would waste time on this.
If you're a white photographer open for the public and you tell a black couple you're not taking pictures at their n-bomb wedding that's 2 blocks away, you're gonna get sued.
If you don't want to go, come up with a better reason and you're fine.
That's where the racial and behavioral difference comes in to play. That photographer isn't avoiding going to a wedding with gay people. They are avoiding going to a wedding where two people of the same sex are being married, something that goes against his/her religion.
If the photographer is smart, they will just say they are booked for the weekend. But as far as I know, there's no law requiring businesses of any kind to appear in any place they choose not to appear to provide a service.
Yeah, you really do. You're giving a different answer to a question about the same topic. If you consider them different, you have to defend that.
Lot of things wrong with this.It's your scenario, you show how the photographer is breaking the law by denying hog party photo services.
One thing is you're trying to appeal to authority (it's right because the law says it right), which is pathetic for a person trying to carry a progressive torch.
Second thing is that the whole point of this thread is about Mizzou making a law to protect such choices, so hiding behind the law makes little sense. And acting like what Oregon or Colorado have done affects this case is silly.
Third, you're again overstating the reach of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunities Act. It's not clear that a national law has any effect on a photographer with a small business.
Fourth, I just have to demonstrate how it's discrimination to do so, and it obviously is. These hog guys are paying like anyone else. Why does the photographer get to refuse this job but not the gay couple? Are they not both based on their ethics? The legality question is separate, as that's at the discretion of law-makers.
Most damning of all is that hiding behind the law means that you're agreeing with the stances of most states prior the the SCOTUS ruling this year. Would your response to this thread been the same a year ago? I hope so. I'd rather you be a hypocrite than a guy who's prejudice is so malleable.
Yeah, just like if the baker was smart they'd have said something similar.
In some states you can't deny photography services to a gay couple because you claim it's your religious right. You're gonna have to go or say your camera broke.
As a Floridian, I am very happy with Rick Scott. He's kept state university tuition very reasonable (as opposed to the previous 15% per year possible raise) - about $6313 per year. They've also given free rides at 6 universities to all Florida National Merits. 6% sales tax, no income tax, assessed property tax capped at 3% increase (by contrast Texas is 10%), pension system in pretty good shape. About the only complaint I have is I wish there were more tech companies here. His doughnut commercial is kinda corny but at least he's trying.
Ok, there's no law in any state that forces someone to take pictures at a hog slaughter.
Unless you show how the photographer is breaking the law by denying service, I win.
Lots of things wrong with this, but I just don't care enough to go point by point with you. Sorry.
How on Earth do you win anything? Is your sense of morality and reasoning really just what the law tells you it is?
And that's ANOTHER logical fallacy. You're just full of them aren't you? You should totally try to get a job with the Trump campaign with that low level of critical thinking.
I don't see anything wrong with denying them photography service. I'm going to guess you don't either.
Your analogy of denying hog killers vs denying gays is ridiculously stupid. lol.
Which fallacy is it exactly?
You see nothing wrong with certain types of discrimination, but not others. I'm glad we're making progress. Now, you've got to justify your claim.
That's nothing but an observation lacking argumentative substance. It's just the same fallacy repeated.Your analogy of denying hog killers vs denying gays is ridiculously stupid
You've been appealing to the stone this whole time. Calling an argument stupid or wrong repeatedly doesn't actually address it. Your most legitimate argument has been you saying that if it's not illegal, it's not wrong. And that was appealing to authority (which again is pathetic for a progressive). You've appealed to the people when asking me to look something up on Google to justify your answer. You've been inconsistent in your conclusions, created a false dichotomy and then tried to put me in a false dilemma. I'm sure there are more, but I don't want to go through this thread. It's quite an impressive scoreboard. And it underscores why you've been acting in a faux-intellectual manner this entire time.
Why are religious ins utions exempt and not individual people? That doesn't seem fair.
The law is an objective standard. Sure it's an appeal to authority but in this case the authority is legitimate.
You instead want to fixate on your false equivalences when in fact the law and the high courts majority interpretation rejects that very paradigm.
You can believe whatever you want but as long as the 14th amendment is being interpreted the same as Justice Kennedy and friends are then your position is irrelevant to actual policy and law enforcement.
I did like the faux-intellectual part though considering your vapid walls of text and grade school level statistical analysis overall. Parroting 'fallacy' over and over again without demonstrating how any of them apply with specifics was also amusing.
Correct. I'm not sure you've learned anything yet tho.
I already did. You just didn't like it.Now, you've got to justify your claim.
Lol. You didn't make an argument with your hog party scenario. You asked a question if the photographer should be made to take pictures there.You've been appealing to the stone this whole time. Calling an argument stupid or wrong repeatedly doesn't actually address it. Your most legitimate argument has been you saying that if it's not illegal, it's not wrong. And that was appealing to authority (which again is pathetic for a progressive).
It's not a stupid argument you made. It's a stupid question you asked.
No, I told you that a person in a higher intellectual position than myself should be able to use Google to find the answer he's looking for to answer his own ridiculously stupid question.You've appealed to the people when asking me to look something up on Google to justify your answer.
You're all over the place and started out with ad hominem right off the bat.You've been inconsistent in your conclusions, created a false dichotomy and then tried to put me in a false dilemma. I'm sure there are more, but I don't want to go through this thread. It's quite an impressive scoreboard. And it underscores why you've been acting in a faux-intellectual manner this entire time.
I don't know that I have a great answer for that, but the First Amendment is pretty ironclad in this regard. Churches aren't forced to accept or keep members and they're allowed to discriminate on gender and sexuality for leadership positions, so if we're going to hold religious ins utions to the same standard as regular businesses, there is a lot that will need to change.
Fundamentally, a marriage in a church/synegogue/etc. is a religious ceremony first and foremost. Legally/secularly, the ceremony itself doesn't really do anything official. So to expect a religious ins ution to perform a ceremony within its walls that contradicts core tenants would be an unnecessary overstep. A cake is a cake... You can make the same looking cake for a gay couple as you can for a straight couple. A marriage ceremony is more complex.
That said, we could be looking at some serious conversations in the near future about churches' tax exempt status.
You're right. All I've gotten from you is that you have finally admitted that simply calling two things discrimination doesn't make them the same. It's been pulling teeth, but you're finally moving along.
You replied with a fallacy. And the reply is one you'd contradict yourself if given a chance in a different thread. I did you the favor of asking for another one.I already did. You just didn't like it.
Eh, sure didn't stop you from trying to label it a slippery slope fallacy. So you knew it was an argument that hadn't been explicated because you kept stoning it. We were FINALLY able to move on after you stopped stoning..Lol. You didn't make an argument with your hog party scenario. You asked a question if the photographer should be made to take pictures there.
It's not a stupid argument you made. It's a stupid question you asked.
But that's not a retort. "Why are you right?" "Go research and find out." Like that means nothing. Do you try to justify all of your opinions by telling people to Google? And it still doesn't get past the appeal to the people issue, because again, at best I'd find in your favor people agreeing with your view point. But that doesn't make it right.No, I told you that a person in a higher intellectual position than myself should be able to use Google to find the answer he's looking for to answer his own ridiculously stupid question.
I used no ad homenim. I did say that your view is tone-deaf, but I proceeded to explain in tldr detail why I disagreed with you. Ad homenims are supposed to be arguments in and of themselves. They aren't just anything that can be interpreted as an insult. And I repeatedly asked for you to explain why you held the view I called tone-deaf, and when you gave the bit of explanation, I responded to it. And ad homenim would be me disregarding your points simply because I considered you tone-deaf.You're all over the place and started out with ad hominem right off the bat.
Last edited by Chinook; 03-11-2016 at 10:08 AM.
Lol the line by line is brutal.
I never said all discrimination is equal. I said discrimination against blacks and discrimination against gays is equal in this case because they don't have a choice as to who they are.
I asked if you think gays have a choice and you said "no.....but it's different...." and blathered on about genes.
You haven't made any argument or given a clear opinion on if you think business owners should be able to discriminate or not. You just want to ride down the middle whining about the style of my posts without picking a lane yourself.
Oh yeah, and you told me not to be pseudo intellectual off the bat which is ad hominem.
Me telling you you're not good at this might be ad hominem, but eh, I'm OK with it because I think there's enough here to show you really have no clue what you're talking about.
As a former baker, this is just a case of manners and pr. It's rude to deny someone interested in your service, moreso because of discrimination- unless, you want to make a pr mess about it and flaunt your holier than thou bull , which is exactly what is happening here. I doubt they had a sign up saying they respectfully declined to serve sexuals "due to our profound religious beliefs". he should have been a decent human being and said," I'm so sorry, we're unavailable for those dates" it's that easy to discriminate without being a (and unfortunately probably the best you can expect in terms of reducing discrimination).
Businesses should have a right to refuse service, but not a right to insult/offend people they don't like. Gay people aren't the ones making these situations difficult, religious nuts are.
Missouri is just bent on allowing bigotry
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — After a failed 37-hour filibuster by Democrats, the Missouri Senate on Thursday passed a proposal to add greater religious protections to the state cons ution for some business owners and individuals opposed to gay marriage.
Senators voted 23-7 along party lines to give the measure final approval following the Democratic filibuster, which ground work in the chamber to a halt.
Division over the measure highlights a national debate over how to balance the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and religious liberties following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer that legalized same-sex marriages in all states.
At issue is legislation to amend the Missouri Cons ution to prohibit government penalties against those who cite a "sincere religious belief" while declining to provide goods and services for same-sex marriage ceremonies or ensuing celebrations taking place around the same time as a wedding ceremony. The measure cites photographers and florists as examples of those who could be covered. It would also shield clergy and worship places that decline to participate in such weddings.
"This amendment will protect those individuals from being commandeered into a wedding ceremony in violation of their religious conscious," said Republican sponsor Sen. Bob Onder, of Lake St. Louis.
Democrats, who argued it would allow discrimination against LGBT people, stalled an initial vote on the measure from Monday afternoon to early Wednesday, when Republicans used a rare procedural move to end what was the longest continuous filibuster in recent state history.
On Thursday, action by frustrated Democrats continued to delay work in the Senate. Their pushback included nearly six hours spent reviewing and debating what's in the official state record of Senate action this week before the measure came up for a final vote.
Democratic Sen. Scott Sifton, of Affton, said if senators and voters met his father and uncle, who are gay, and their partners, the proposal would fail and "Missouri voters would reject it unanimously."
Some Democratic lawmakers invoked images of an era when businesses refused to serve people because of the color of their skin. Sen. Jason Holsman, D-Kansas City, said the proposal could allow businesses to hang signs banning LGBT people.
"It's wrong, and we shouldn't do it," he said. "Generations from now, people will look back on what we've done, and they'll be ashamed of us."
The proposal, which could go before voters as a ballot measure this year, is among the latest efforts by Republican lawmakers in some states in reaction to the high court's ruling..........
http://news.yahoo.com/missouri-relig...071137592.html
Of course it is, since it means you'd just repeat non-arguments over and over again.
And I've repeatedly demonstrated why choice is irrelevant and made arguments at to why I consider racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual preference different in terms of their NATURE. Like, you don't get to discriminate against Muslims just because they choose to follow Islam. So if something that is completely a choice can be a protected class, then there's no sexual preference is protected no matter where you put it on the continuum. Hence why I used the term bookends, which you seemed to fail to understand.I never said all discrimination is equal. I said discrimination against blacks and discrimination against gays is equal in this case because they don't have a choice as to who they are.
To be clear, I don't think discrimination based on race, sexual preference or religion (or gender, political affiliation etc.) should exist. So in that regard, I don't think they should be different. However, I still maintain they ARE different for many reasons, which I have enumerated multiple times. Being gay will NEVER be the same as being black. But it doesn't have to be that bad for me to want it to not exist.
I said no. I haven't qualified that no at all since I've said it. But you keep making the mistake of believing that a yes or no to your question meant anything. It didn't. You were asking the wrong question the whole time.I asked if you think gays have a choice and you said "no.....but it's different...." and blathered on about genes.
This the the first time you've asked for one. But yeah, I do think it's a tricky issue. I don't feel comfortable with the government encroaching on people's rights to be assholes in most cases. Like if Walmart today banned black people from entering the store, I wouldn't want Uncle Sam stopping them. There are other non-governmental controls that will take care of them, and I'd go to Target until those worked their magic. I feel like that's even more true for small businesses, and the Oregon example showed what happens when social pressure starts to work. That business was sunk long before they lost the court case.You haven't made any argument or given a clear opinion on if you think business owners should be able to discriminate or not.
Only time I think it's critical for the government to force a business' hand is when there isn't an alternative within a reasonable difference. So like it wouldn't be okay to wait for the only Walmart in town to reintegrate.
You REALLY need to figure out what an ad homenim is. It's not just "calling you a name".Oh yeah, and you told me not to be pseudo intellectual off the bat which is ad hominem.
It's not. It's an appeal to the stone. I've already told you that.Me telling you you're not good at this might be ad hominem
All that has been shown is that you shrivel up like a raisin when challenged.I think there's enough here to show you really have no clue what you're talking about.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
