Piggy Pork and Gay Wedding Cakes

[Chris]

It's odd how progressives always struggle to justify their positions.

The odd thing is it really doesn't matter how they justify their opinions, just that they do. Of course, they don't have to.

[Chris]

Then you are doing a poor job at presenting your argument. The government has every right to enforce the law and ensure citizens are not discriminated against by businesses that break the law.

Probably. I don't claim perfection.

The government has every right to enforce the law and ensure citizens are not discriminated against by businesses that break the law.

Why?

Note the you're arguing in circles assuming what you need to demonstrate, that the law justifies itself.

[Mister D]

The odd thing is it really doesn't matter how they justify their opinions, just that they do. Of course, they don't have to.

It does make for quite a spectacle.

[Chris]

Thinking now, in what case would a government truly represent, no, be the will of the people. I can see where a people of a place, and time, evolved naturally, organically, traditionally, normally, even institutionally as a unified collective whole, and sorted themselves into a hierarchy when some few resolved differences and enforced the social order. Small feudal monarchies might work this way and work well because the monarchy had stake in the game of his monarch prospering. But the US is not like that, it's a liberal democracy, where the individual should be free to decide his own fate and property and whom he associates with and contracts with, and the government was created to serve and protect that, not serve some against others. Of course there's also socialism, where the people aren't trusted to decide for themselves and a few elites claim to know better and self-contradiction is never a problem--but we know every instance of this form of government has failed miserably.

[Dr. Who]

Let me know when the individual is free from being forced to serve someone.

Good lord, I tell you your argument is what everyone knows and doesn't justify forcing one to serve other and you just carry on as if nothing was said. Why do you quote me if you're not going to respnd to what I post?


So let me be more direct. Your argument is wrong in two ways. One, you assume that government are formed to serve society and it's interests over individual interests. There is no basis for that argument, none in history, none in theory, none in practice. Two, more importantly, if we assume you are correct, then you run into the same problems Safety does in his arguments because if a society decides it wants to enslave some to serve others then the laws will reflect that in your vision of why the government exists, but while legal we all know slavery is illegal. You vision runs into a contradiction.

Now you can argue till the cows come home that you think you know what's best for society and that that's not to be left to the people themselves to decide but up to some elitist central planners behond closed door to decide for them, but I guarantee your society will rebel against you.

First of all, I disagree with you, thus my argument reflects my disagreement. Laws are justified by public acceptance.
Since America is a nation of laws, I suspect that contextually, my argument, which is founded in reality rather than in purist ideology that lacks any contemporary application other than in minuscule populations in the last thousand years, and where it did exist, has long since been replaced with variations on the current theme, is actually more valid. Corruption of laws by corrupt people does not invalidate the need for laws or taint all laws by association. Just as inasmuch as some people are bad drivers, we don't abolish cars and driving. Corrupt laws are eventually identified by the people and vacated accordingly.

The state has repeatedly been chosen by humankind because it removes the bumps from the road. People do not prefer anarchy. They like predictability and laws, so that they can make plans. Just as where businesses that merge, consolidate administration for greater efficiency, states consolidate the administration of territories, so that people don't have to spend inordinate amounts of time, money and effort performing tasks that they can sub out to government. (in a nutshell). The notion of government is not wrong. The notion of the state is not wrong. The only thing that is wrong is the behavior of individuals and regardless of whether there is a state or anarchy, corrupt individuals will connive to usurp fairness.

[Dr. Who]

If "Owning a business is nothing like slavery because owning a business is a $#@!ing decision" is "couldn't be further from the truth, especially when using a weak ass comparison in attempt to help your sinking argument" that is because it's your misunderstanding of my argument. So knock your misunderstanding down.



My argument is the government has no right to force one to serve another.

It doesn't. If I hire you to cater my party, you sure as heck will not get paid if you refuse to serve my ethnic minority, gay, transgendered, communist, non-Christian friends, or anyone else that doesn't fit your right of association particulars. Furthermore, I will report you to whoever gave you a license to operate. Obtaining a license to trade is no different.

[Agent Zero]

Right, but few of us are forced to serve someone else. That's my point here, and nothing safety has said justifies the government doing that. And that's my point, nothing to do with having to do things we dislike, of course we do, but we choose to do that because doing it has some subjective value to us over not doing it.


Again, I ask you Zero, what rights are violated in refusing to serve someone? What harm is done?

I beg to differ. All of us, in every endeavor and every aspect of our lives, are forced to serve someone else.

While in church every Sunday, I serve my Lord. Sitting at my desk in the bowels of the State Dept I serve the Constitution. At home, I serve my wife and children.

in the case of the bakery owner, he may be serving his Lord in church, but in his bakery he’s serving his customers under the anti discrimination laws of the state of Colorado.

As far as your final question, that’s not my determination to make. It’s the determination of the state of Colorado, and ultimately the SCOTUS.

[Chris]

First of all, I disagree with you, thus my argument reflects my disagreement. Laws are justified by public acceptance.
Since America is a nation of laws, I suspect that contextually, my argument, which is founded in reality rather than in purist ideology that lacks any contemporary application other than in minuscule populations in the last thousand years, and where it did exist, has long since been replaced with variations on the current theme, is actually more valid. Corruption of laws by corrupt people does not invalidate the need for laws or taint all laws by association. Just as inasmuch as some people are bad drivers, we don't abolish cars and driving. Corrupt laws are eventually identified by the people and vacated accordingly.

The state has repeatedly been chosen by humankind because it removes the bumps from the road. People do not prefer anarchy. They like predictability and laws, so that they can make plans. Just as where businesses that merge, consolidate administration for greater efficiency, states consolidate the administration of territories, so that people don't have to spend inordinate amounts of time, money and effort performing tasks that they can sub out to government. (in a nutshell). The notion of government is not wrong. The notion of the state is not wrong. The only thing that is wrong is the behavior of individuals and regardless of whether there is a state or anarchy, corrupt individuals will connive to usurp fairness.

Of course you disagree, just that when you quote someone you ought to address what they said. If you're just going to express your views on the matter, don't quote.

Laws are justified by public acceptance.

Slavery was publicly accepted.

There has to be something more.

Since America is a nation of laws....

Yes, read them, they are supposed to serve and protect the people and their rights, not violate them to serve only some.

my argument, which is founded in reality....

Then ground it in that reality, cite examples of governments that work the way you prefer them to. Don't just claim it.

The state has repeatedly been chosen by humankind...

For perhaps only 1-2% of man's 300000 year existence. So that claim doesn't stand.

People do not prefer anarchy.

For perhaps only 1-2% of man's 300000 year existence. So that claim doesn't stand.


You keep claiming your view is grounded in reality.

They like predictability and laws, so that they can make plans.

And they like risks and going around the law.

Reality?

The notion of government is not wrong. The notion of the state is not wrong. The only thing that is wrong is the behavior of individuals and regardless of whether there is a state or anarchy, corrupt individuals will connive to usurp fairness.

Slavery.

Those thoughts are very Rousseauian and Hegelian whose ideas led to totalitarian states. (Comment on your post, not you.)

[Chris]

It doesn't. If I hire you to cater my party, you sure as heck will not get paid if you refuse to serve my ethnic minority, gay, transgendered, communist, non-Christian friends, or anyone else that doesn't fit your right of association particulars. Furthermore, I will report you to whoever gave you a license to operate. Obtaining a license to trade is no different.

Indeed, if you and I mutually voluntarily agree--a contract--then we ought to abide by that agreement and the law ought to enforce it. No argument there.

The baker never agreed to make the cake, he said no. No contract.


Obtaining a license is different for it is forced upon you. You have no choice.

[Chris]

I beg to differ. All of us, in every endeavor and every aspect of our lives, are forced to serve someone else.

While in church every Sunday, I serve my Lord. Sitting at my desk in the bowels of the State Dept I serve the Constitution. At home, I serve my wife and children.

in the case of the bakery owner, he may be serving his Lord in church, but in his bakery he’s serving his customers under the anti discrimination laws of the state of Colorado.

As far as your final question, that’s not my determination to make. It’s the determination of the state of Colorado, and ultimately the SCOTUS.

You are forced to serve your Lord? Who forces you?

Who forced to serve your family? Who forces you?

You are not forced. You choose to do so.

Same with the bakers, he serves those he chooses to. But the government wants to force him to serve other.


A government founded on the principle all are equal before the law is different and must treat all equally.


My final question was what rights do you see violated in not serving someone? What harm? That's not up to the government.