(July 2, 2014 at 10:41 am)Heywood Wrote:(July 2, 2014 at 9:33 am)blackout94 Wrote: I am not looking forward to debate your divergences, but the right to happiness, in the US or other country should be interpreted with diligence. Why? Because people could argue absurdities that would make them happy. Imagine this, I don't want to work because I'm lazy, and I argue the state should still pay me welfare my whole life because it makes me happy. Would it be legitimate? No. There is a right to pursue happiness (in my constitution there is the right to fulfillment, not to happiness, but it's pretty similar
), not the right to be happy, being happy will depend on yourself as long as minimum conditions are given.
In this country some courts have decided that bakers of wedding cakes must bake cakes for gay couples getting married. They force these bakers to participate in weddings that they find objectionable. The argument is if they don't want to serve gay weddings, they shouldn't sell wedding cakes......no right to persue happiness for those people.
Persuit of happiness isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Countries should simply be governed in a manner that maximizes people's ability to persue happiness.
First, there is nothing in the bible that allows for this kind of bigotry, so he didn't refuse because of his religious belief. He refused because he is a bigot.
The bible talks a lot about forgiveness, treating others as you would have them treat you. Love thy neighbor. Nothing that christians really believe, but that is basis if the teachings that Jesus taught.
I was a bit torn on this because if one chooses to not do a job that should be their right. After all, it was a service and not a retail product that he was selling. But the problem wasn't in his not doing the job, it was why he refused the job.
If he stated that he couldn't take the job because he was going on vacation, or had another job, or other committments. Or maybe he refused because he doesn't work out of a particular area. It would have been ok.
But he didn't do that. He said he refused the job because they were gay. What he was telling the world is that he is a bigot and he will refused to do business with anyone that he disagrees with. Who will be next? Liberals? Blacks? Muslims?
A government that needs to promote the welfare of all americans regardless of religion, sex, sex preference, etc, can't allow that kind of bigotry in our country or soon we will become little more than another Iraq or Syria.
