|
|
02-27-2014, 05:42 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1
|
Is that your left brain fighting with your right brain?
|
02-27-2014, 05:42 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
In this case, she did. It should have been voted on.
I think you don't give the public enough credibility to do the right thing. You clearly think that the government should dictate to the public right from wrong, and you don't seem to have any ability to see things from a different point of view. This is why it is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion with people like you.
I don't think had this law passed that there would have been a big influx of segregation issues. Most people have grown accustomed to be tolerant. What I saw this law doing, and based on discussions with my parents who are currently in Arizona, this law was more about giving people who have religious views back some rights to not be forced to do something that violates their moral convictions.
|
Some things happen over time and some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming along, do you believe people in the south in 1860 would have voted for blacks to be equal citizens ? How about men giving women equal rights in this country in 1910 ? The tyranny is the majority is wrong.
If the people in Arizona are upset by what the governor has done they can vote her out next time.
|
02-27-2014, 05:43 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
Is that your left brain fighting with your right brain?
|
Sorry if I think things out and don't automatically go along with my established political views.
|
02-27-2014, 05:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
In my opinion, it is because the gay couple had an agenda to push.
|
Probably right!
|
02-27-2014, 05:47 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
I think a Muslim baker should be permitted to refuse to bake a cake for a christening as much as a christian baker has a right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
And I don't see why the government should get involved and force either baker to bake a cake for a person or group that violates their moral convictions.
|
This is the same government who forces people to serve in the military at times, makes people pay taxes under punishment of jail time. Do you really think they are going to exclude bakers ?.
|
02-27-2014, 05:48 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by covey ridge
Probably right!
|
Why it started is really irrelevant, that's a red herring.
|
02-27-2014, 05:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you sit.
|
Although I do not agree, I have respect for those on both sides of the fence. Those who sit on the fence, not so much.
|
02-27-2014, 05:53 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
I think a Muslim baker should be permitted to refuse to bake a cake for a christening as much as a christian baker has a right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
And I don't see why the government should get involved and force either baker to bake a cake for a person or group that violates their moral convictions.
|
I believe you.
I also believe that if the situation was reversed.... you would find yourself on the wrong side of the vast majority of those who are on your side in this right now.
|
02-27-2014, 05:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,022
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
Can you show that it is under religious grounds? Nope, so then he violates the law.
But homosexuality is prohibited by many religions, and as such he would have grounds.
|
So should a fanatical devote Muslim be allowed to not provide essential services to a Christian because in his religion he can't help infidels?
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
|
02-27-2014, 05:54 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by covey ridge
Although I do not agree, I have respect for those on both sides of the fence. Those who sit on the fence, not so much.
|
Incase anybody is wondering I will 99% of the time support a bill that brings people together and 99% of the time not support a bill that divides people.
|
02-27-2014, 05:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
So should a fanatical devote Muslim be allowed to not provide essential services to a Christian because in his religion he can't help infidels?
|
Baking cake.... not essential
Medical attention...essentail
|
02-27-2014, 05:58 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
So should a fanatical devote Muslim be allowed to not provide essential services to a Christian because in his religion he can't help infidels?
|
The law wasn't about wholly excluding anything. Someone stated earlier about a Muslim butcher who refused to butcher a pig. I believe that to be a good example to use. I believe a muslin butcher should be able to refuse anything he wants but he shouldn't have different rules for different groups. If he refuses for Christians and agrees for hindu's that's where I would disagree. Picking and choosing based on religious beliefs will divide people.
|
02-27-2014, 06:07 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1
Some things happen over time and some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming along, do you believe people in the south in 1860 would have voted for blacks to be equal citizens ? How about men giving women equal rights in this country in 1910 ? The tyranny is the majority is wrong.
If the people in Arizona are upset by what the governor has done they can vote her out next time.
|
You don't know much about history do you?
Men didn't even have the vote in 1910 unless they were property owners.
Furthermore, if you were Native or of Asianic background, you could not vote either regardless of property ownership.
In WW1, only serving men who previously could not vote were given the vote, as well as women who had direct serving relatives could vote.
|
02-27-2014, 06:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1
The law wasn't about wholly excluding anything. Someone stated earlier about a Muslim butcher who refused to butcher a pig. I believe that to be a good example to use. I believe a muslin butcher should be able to refuse anything he wants but he shouldn't have different rules for different groups. If he refuses for Christians and agrees for hindu's that's where I would disagree. Picking and choosing based on religious beliefs will divide people.
|
Not a good example! A devout Muslim would have only one rule with respect to pigs. No different rule for different groups.
|
02-27-2014, 06:09 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1
This is the same government who forces people to serve in the military at times, makes people pay taxes under punishment of jail time. Do you really think they are going to exclude bakers ?.
|
This is not even worthy of a proper reply.
|
02-27-2014, 06:10 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
You don't know much about history do you?
Men didn't even have the vote in 1910 unless they were property owners.
Furthermore, if you were Native or of Asianic background, you could not vote either regardless of property ownership.
In WW1, only serving men who previously could not vote were given the vote, as well as women who had direct serving relatives could vote.
|
All of those things changed because they were wrong. They didn't go to a vote either because they probably would have lost.
|
02-27-2014, 06:11 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger
I believe you.
I also believe that if the situation was reversed.... you would find yourself on the wrong side of the vast majority of those who are on your side in this right now.
|
If the situation was reversed, I doubt I would have this opinion.
And for the record, I don't care if a person is gay or not. But I do understand some people's religious opinion, and that is what I think needs to be respected.
Big issue is how to protect both groups without harming the other.
|
02-27-2014, 06:13 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1
All of those things changed because they were wrong. They didn't go to a vote either because they probably would have lost.
|
You really should do some research on the subject. You might learn something.
|
02-27-2014, 06:13 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
This is not even worthy of a proper reply.
|
You wonder why the government has the power to force a baker bake a cake when the government has the power to force people to go to war, or pay up to 40% of their wages to them or even kill people under the death penalty. I say a cake baking is pretty minor compared to a machine gun.
|
02-27-2014, 06:15 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 404
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
Why not? It could very well be.
You are talking about this, but it could also include many other scenarios.
|
You are fooling yourself if you think it is about any other scenario.
|
02-27-2014, 06:15 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
So should a fanatical devote Muslim be allowed to not provide essential services to a Christian because in his religion he can't help infidels?
|
Christians are not infidels according to Muslims, nor are Jews. However Buddhists are.
In fact the Qur'an speaks about the bible, Christianity, and the various main characters of both the new and old testament, and they are portrayed in a good light.
|
02-27-2014, 06:16 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
You really should do some research on the subject. You might learn something.
|
You might want to stop dismissing someone's opinion when it doesn't agree with yours.
|
02-27-2014, 06:18 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whammy
You are fooling yourself if you think it is about any other scenario.
|
Perhaps you are the one who is misunderstanding the issue. The law will be interpreted differently by people depending on their needs at the time.
And I am not saying I agree with the law, I am saying I understand why some think there is a need.
|
02-27-2014, 06:20 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 350
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1
All of those things changed because they were wrong. They didn't go to a vote either because they probably would have lost.
|
And before the laws changed the majorities were in the right.
You have a strange set of convictions.
The majority populous rules in your mindset. Conformity rules eh?
That sure doesn't say much for individualism which is what our free society is truly based on.
Your a glutton for punishment. ...weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
Last edited by Boots270; 02-27-2014 at 06:25 PM.
|
02-27-2014, 06:25 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boots270
And before the laws changed the majorities were in the right.
You have a strange set of convictions.
The majority populous rules in your mindset. Conformity rules eh?
That sure doesn't say much for individualism which is what our free society is truly based on.
|
The majority of men wanted women to vote ? Southerners wanted blacks free ? That's shows in all the black codes and Jim Crow laws and segregation that happened after the war was over, not to mention the firehouses and the kkk and forced integration of the schools 100 years later.
|
02-27-2014, 06:25 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1
You might want to stop dismissing someone's opinion when it doesn't agree with yours.
|
Perhaps you want to read up on history before you accuse me of dismissing your opinion on some things. I can back up what I say about history, and you claim it is a difference of opinion. Not so, it is a difference of fact.
History is not about opinion, it is about facts of history. Fact one is that even many men didn't have the right to vote at the turn of the last century, and in fact women got the vote before many other groups of men did.
For example, Chinese, Indians (not natives), Dukobors, and Mennonites were denied the vote unless they served in the military until 1947.
|
02-27-2014, 06:26 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 350
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1
The majority of men wanted women to vote ? Southerners wanted blacks free ? That's shows in all the black codes and Jim Crow laws and segregation that happened after the war was over, not to mention the firehouses and the kkk and forced integration of the schools 100 years later.
|
So says the story books you read.
|
02-27-2014, 06:28 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boots270
So says the story books you read.
|
History books you mean.
You claimed it so you back it up. I want to see a poll from 1859 that's says white people wanted blacks free and the government just did the will of the people.
|
02-27-2014, 06:30 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
Perhaps you want to read up on history before you accuse me of dismissing your opinion on some things. I can back up what I say about history, and you claim it is a difference of opinion. Not so, it is a difference of fact.
History is not about opinion, it is about facts of history. Fact one is that even many men didn't have the right to vote at the turn of the last century, and in fact women got the vote before many other groups of men did.
For example, Chinese, Indians (not natives), Dukobors, and Mennonites were denied the vote unless they served in the military until 1947.
|
Sure is never say they didn't. I said if given a vote in 1910 women would not have been given the vote. Fact is sometimes government has to force things to happen popular majority or not.
|
02-27-2014, 06:34 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 404
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273
Perhaps you are the one who is misunderstanding the issue. The law will be interpreted differently by people depending on their needs at the time.
And I am not saying I agree with the law, I am saying I understand why some think there is a need.
|
I'm not misunderstanding it. It's very clear to almost everyone what the issue is.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 AM.
|