Gay Marriage, Forced on Everyone???

They can have whatever "views" they want. It's acting on them to discriminate that's the issue. And again, we all pretty much agree with the state stepping in on some occasions (you mentioned some in your first post and the "no blacks or Irish signs" ought not to be allowed IMO). The debate here is where to draw the line.

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2445847&postcount=31

Interesting. In your mind, it is acceptable to discriminate on religious grounds, but not on others. "I disagree with this religion" is sufficient justification, but "I disagree with calling this marriage" is not.

Would you care to explain why discrimination on the basis of religion is acceptable, while discrimination on other grounds is not?

I don't expect the world to be perfect. That's what liberals are for. And we flawed human beings keep letting them down.

My philosophy stems from freedom being the greatest good. It's a little scary how a lot you seem so threatened by that. Government is like your warm security blanket, keeping you from being eaten by your neighbors. I guess that makes it understandable why you'd want everyone disarmed--an empowered individual (*unless he's a public employee) is just too dangerous a concept for your worldview.

I personally think the WBC should be legally protected, not because they deserve it, but because having them treated equally when they don't deserve it is necessary to ensure that everyone who does deserve equal treatment gets it.

Are you arguing that religion is anything other than a choice?

RickDeckard did, not long ago. His argument was that parents teaching their children Creationism is "child abuse."

I don't agree that it's child abuse, but I do contend that religious belief or lack thereof is significantly influenced by upbringing. Is it a choice? Yes. Is it entirely a choice independent of outside influence? Nope.

But let's see if you can give a straight answer to Async's question: Is discrimination on religious grounds acceptable?

I must have misunderstood then. I thought you were saying that the free market would get rid of things like "no coloreds" signs.

My worldview? Got a link for saying I want everyone disarmed?

Those two sentences are unrelated either to each other or to my question to Asyncritus.

You could not possibly lie more clumsily.

An example of this: http://wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=98045

The IFs are valid. If (hah!) those 'bulldykes' as you call them in a very manly and totally heterosexual fashion just shut up and walked away, now that's empowering discrimination. Again, what's next. Hair color? You know, just because I just read a book by the great, late Ephraim Kishon called 'The Comb' where he draws up a scenario just like that. It's funny, but also very frightening.

Again. Would you be so casual with your opinion if that baker was black and refused to cater to white people? Or... gay, refusing service to heteros?

It's the small things where it starts. From there, it's always a tiny bit more. I'm betting you'd have a slightly different opinion if you weren't very white and allegedly straight. You don't have such problems so it's easy to badmouth people who have them and stand up instead of running away for the millionth time.

I agree, but Libertopia always seems to end with freedom for an elite, and the rest get crumbs.

Nope, fuck that contradiction, and fuck the elite.

There is no "divine right of kings", America exists because we overthrew that horseshit.

Now, go fuck yourself.

I never said discrimination on the basis of religion was acceptable. Therefore the rest of your post has no validity.

So your freedom to take away my rights trumps my freedom not to have my rights taken away?

Holy shit, your world is a fucked up place. Good thing it doesn't really exist.

Fucking liar. Your repeated tactic of unashamedly quoting one thing and claiming it says something completely different has led me to draw the conclusion that I shouldn't bother responding to you any more. This will be the last time.

I have - nowhere, ever - said that religion is not a choice.

Are you assuming that doesn't happen? Maybe you think that all conservative heterosexual white males, only conservative heterosexual white males, ever engage in discrimination.

Whose rights is Paladin proposing to take away?

Apparently, it does -- as a strawman you cooked up.

Sure it happens. I have the exact same opinion on all other cases in their indefinite varieties - but those are not on discussion here. Don't play the poor white conservative victim because hey, no one's buying it.

That isn't what you flipped out over, asscheeks. What I said is that you argued that teaching Creationism is child abuse. And then I quoted you stating that very thing. Holy shit, no wonder you're enamored of socialism. A whole ideology tailor-made for naive morons like you.

Which is symptomatic, not dispositive.

"We're not going to talk about when it happens to the people we're demonizing, because we don't care that it happens to them!"

Which rights are we talking about?

both cases concern an act of labor being, potentially, compelled.

So, what's the update on the person who has been accused of wrongthink?

Have they dragged him to Room 101 yet?

"Next thing you know they'll be wearing PANTS!!! Driving cars!!! Using birth control!!!!

it will be a fucking madhouse! anarchy in the streets! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!!!

My right to equal protection under the law.

That'll be after the ceremony and before the reception, though Volpone still hasn't told us where or when.

You could put a picture of Obama on the floor at the door so they had to step on it and make them recite the Pledge of Allegiance before you took their order.

Well, you got me. I'm totally going to open a bakery just so I can refuse to sell to brunettes.