Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 23, 2024, 4:11 am

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(July 4, 2015 at 4:11 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: If their views are negatively affecting the business they chose to start, maybe they should think about changing their views, or at least not publicly stating them.

They shouldn't have to be bullied and harassed into silence just to appease the radicals who disagree with them in the first place. The very people who demand tolerance and claim to champion freedom of speech are the very ones trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. No. They shouldn't have to be silent or be made to feel that they have to compromise their convictions for appeasement's sake.
"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"

[Image: freddy_03.jpg]

Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.
Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
Dude. They don't have to make their private beliefs their business policy. Bigotry doesn't attract customers. How do you suggest to bring clients to a place owned by discriminatory, hateful people? Come on.
Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(July 4, 2015 at 4:26 pm)A Theist Wrote:
(July 4, 2015 at 4:11 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: If their views are negatively affecting the business they chose to start, maybe they should think about changing their views, or at least not publicly stating them.

They shouldn't have to be bullied and harassed into silence just to appease the radicals who disagree with them in the first place. The very people who demand tolerance and claim to champion freedom of speech are the very ones trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. No. They shouldn't have to be silent or be made to feel that they have to compromise their convictions for appeasement's sake.

They don't have to be silent, but if your going to spout off about not liking certain groups of people then expect people who disagree to spout off right back at you. Its strange, you don't want people to boycott businesses for the owners views but your perfectly fine with a business owner boycotting customers for their views.
Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
What is this "bullying and harassment"? I haven't followed these stories all that closely but as far as i'm aware the only pushback against anti-gay businesses has been boycotting - how can you have a problem with that, freedom of speech doesn't mean the right to have everyone agree with you, you can't expect people to not take their business elsewhere once they know that it's supporting someone who holds an opinion they find disgusting
“The larger the group, the more toxic, the more of your beauty as an individual you have to surrender for the sake of group thought. And when you suspend your individual beauty you also give up a lot of your humanity. You will do things in the name of a group that you would never do on your own. Injuring, hurting, killing, drinking are all part of it, because you've lost your identity, because you now owe your allegiance to this thing that's bigger than you are and that controls you.”  - George Carlin
Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(July 4, 2015 at 4:26 pm)A Theist Wrote:
(July 4, 2015 at 4:11 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: If their views are negatively affecting the business they chose to start, maybe they should think about changing their views, or at least not publicly stating them.

They shouldn't have to be bullied and harassed into silence just to appease the radicals who disagree with them in the first place. The very people who demand tolerance and claim to champion freedom of speech are the very ones trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. No. They shouldn't have to be silent or be made to feel that they have to compromise their convictions for appeasement's sake.

I would say the majority who don't agree with them don't bully or harass. Most just boycott. That's what I do. I'd actually rather them be vocal about their views so I know not to do business with them. It's pretty simple.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(July 4, 2015 at 4:36 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:
(July 4, 2015 at 4:26 pm)A Theist Wrote: They shouldn't have to be bullied and harassed into silence just to appease the radicals who disagree with them in the first place. The very people who demand tolerance and claim to champion freedom of speech are the very ones trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. No. They shouldn't have to be silent or be made to feel that they have to compromise their convictions for appeasement's sake.

They don't have to be silent, but if your going to spout off about not liking certain groups of people then expect people who disagree to spout off right back at you. Its strange, you don't want people to boycott businesses for the owners views but your perfectly fine with a business owner boycotting customers for their views.

Where did I say anything about not liking certain groups of people? Just because someone disagrees with gay marriage, i.e., doesn't mean that individual dislikes or hates gays, personally. My original point was, that if businesses, business owners, people of faith and anyone else who opposes gay marriage are being harassed, bullied, or boycotted, then turn about is fair play.  I personally would support an organized effort to boycott businesses that I know who supports leftist causes and also to boycott businesses which bow to leftist pressure.
"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"

[Image: freddy_03.jpg]

Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.
Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
^Well that's a different case if it comes to harassment or violence, which are actually crimes and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, I do actually think these people should have free speech to say "I don't agree with gay marriage". I don't want to see people with their mouths gagged, even if what they have to say is utter shite. However, if you're going to argue that their views must be protected from negative response and criticism that is also a violation of free speech. I don't think many people are saying it should be criminalised to say "I think marriage is between a man and a woman", but everything you say has consequences and if people disagree with you, they also have free speech to let that be known. You can't selectively protect some peoples' free speech while restricting others.

What these people are asking for is free speech, but they want that free speech to only apply to themselves. That's religion all over, play the victim card when it suits.
"Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the road, and then getting hit by an airplane"  - sarcasm_only

"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable."
- Maryam Namazie

Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(July 4, 2015 at 6:25 pm)A Theist Wrote:
(July 4, 2015 at 4:36 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: They don't have to be silent, but if your going to spout off about not liking certain groups of people then expect people who disagree to spout off right back at you. Its strange, you don't want people to boycott businesses for the owners views but your perfectly fine with a business owner boycotting customers for their views.

Where did I say anything about not liking certain groups of people? Just because someone disagrees with gay marriage, i.e., doesn't mean that individual dislikes or hates gays, personally.  My original point was, that if businesses, business owners, people of faith and anyone else who opposes gay marriage are being harassed, bullied, or boycotted, then turn about is fair play.  I personally would support an organized effort to boycott businesses that I know who supports leftist causes and also to boycott businesses which bow to leftist pressure.
Fine, maybe like was the wrong word, just replace it with discrimination and the point still stands. I get your point, of course its fair play, everyone has the right to boycott they always have.

There is a reason you don't see to people lining up to boycott businesses that are pro equal rights, because generally people support equal rights.
Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
Congratulations America! It's about bloody time!
Reply
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
(July 4, 2015 at 6:38 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: ^Well that's a different case if it comes to harassment or violence, which are actually crimes and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, I do actually think these people should have free speech to say "I don't agree with gay marriage". I don't want to see people with their mouths gagged, even if what they have to say is utter shite. However, if you're going to argue that their views must be protected from negative response and criticism that is also a violation of free speech. I don't think many people are saying it should be criminalised to say "I think marriage is between a man and a woman", but everything you say has consequences and if people disagree with you, they also have free speech to let that be known. You can't selectively protect some peoples' free speech while restricting others.

What these people are asking for is free speech, but they want that free speech to only apply to themselves. That's religion all over, play the victim card when it suits.

Quote:However, if you're going to argue that their views must be protected from negative response and criticism that is also a violation of free speech.
 No, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just saying that if pro gay marriage activists, i.e., for one, want to threaten businesses with boycotts or threaten and harass people they disagree with, then turn about is fair play. I would support an organized effort to combat such activists at their game. In other words, use their own tactics of bullying and harassment against them and against the businesses who support their efforts.
"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"

[Image: freddy_03.jpg]

Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Leaked Supreme Court Decision signals majority set to overturn Roe v. Wade Cecelia 234 24866 June 7, 2022 at 11:58 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Same guy? onlinebiker 10 1032 May 27, 2022 at 6:42 pm
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  Madison Cawthorn Sex Tape Released Divinity 26 5081 May 6, 2022 at 4:52 am
Last Post: onlinebiker
  Supreme Court To Take Up Right to Carry Firearm Outside Home onlinebiker 57 3672 April 29, 2021 at 8:20 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Court Ordered Quarantine brewer 2 567 October 24, 2019 at 10:15 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Supreme Court Considers Mandatory Govt Funding of Religious Education EgoDeath 8 1219 September 24, 2019 at 10:37 am
Last Post: EgoDeath
  Fed Court, "hand over 8yrs of your finances" Brian37 15 1602 May 22, 2019 at 6:34 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Corruption is the same worldwide..... Brian37 4 809 December 2, 2018 at 12:59 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Hitler Had The Same Problem Minimalist 4 832 November 26, 2018 at 6:41 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Court of Appeals Tells Alabama Shitheads to "Fuck Off!" Minimalist 6 1412 August 23, 2018 at 2:00 am
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)