Piggy Pork and Gay Wedding Cakes

[Safety]

The “using religion to hide bigotry” argument is bogus. You shouldn’t be able to demand someone else caves to your way of thinking-and if they don’t, label them a bigot.

Nah, it isn't bogus, when an establishment who wants to cite religion as the reason for them to not serve gays, shows me their reluctance to not serve adulterers, shellfish consumers, people who work on Sunday, etc., then I will buy the whole "it goes against my religion" meme.

[Chris]

What interests me is Chris's appeal to authority, when I'm simply showing how a douchebag who didn't want to sell a cake to a couple of gay guys has him all wound up like the Gestapo raided his business and had his way with his wife. Your appeal to history also doesn't apply here.

I'm pointing out you two's appeal to authority and how it parallels the thinking of socialists. Indeed, I'm appealing to history. You appeal to name calling.

[Chris]

You know what Chris, you don't actually argue about what I post either. Anarchy is the source of your posts. I can't help but mention it because you don't believe in the state at all, so without mentioning anarchy your posts don't even make any reasonable sense. It's like arguing with someone from another planet. You just say the law is wrong or shouldn't exist and start name dropping economists and theory. That ignores the reality of states and the reality of economics. Perhaps I should fall back on my perfect utopia - the world of Star Trek, where people don't need money at all and capitalism or even the free market is a distant amusing memory.

Oh, but I do, Who, I address what you post.

If anarchy is the source of my posts why do I argue the purpose of the government is to protect rights and property and contract? I've argued that repeatedly.

This reminds me of my thread asking is atheism rational and all the aethists attacked theism as if that rationally made their case for atheism. --Attacking anarchy doesn't justify your socialist approach here. Dream on.

[Chris]

Why does every argument about the state result in comments about collectivism, socialism and ultimately communism with you? You have somehow equated human rights protections with violent political regimes. Should I follow your way of thinking, I should suggest that your views are repeats of Southern Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond, Russell Long, Harry Byrd and George Wallace.

Because that is the framework within which you argue. The following post of yours demonstrates that:

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.

That is what Rousseau and Hegel argued, hell, it goes back to Plato.

Should I follow your way of thinking, I should suggest that your views are repeats of Southern Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond, Russell Long, Harry Byrd and George Wallace.

\

That's a nice claim. What do you offer to substantiate it? ...Nothing. It's just a vacuous accusation. Basically it shows your angry so you lash out.

[Safety]

I'm pointing out you two's appeal to authority and how it parallels the thinking of socialists. Indeed, I'm appealing to history. You appeal to name calling.

I can name call as I please, as long as it isn't directed towards any member. What's the problem now?

[Chris]

Just like no one in the south really took away black rights when they didn't allow them in restaurants, hotels (except as workers), on buses except in the back or allowed them to drink from the same water fountains, swim in the same swimming pools or attend the same schools as whites. Rights of association truly reigned supreme in the south. Such a tribute to freedom, unless of course you were black.

I keep asking, what rights? The right to force one to serve another?

The right of association doesn't mean you get to unilaterally choose whom you associate with, it has to be mutual.


What's interesting is the violations of rights of black of slavery and segregation you mention were commited by the government and its laws, the government you say is morally right in doing that, it's the law after all..

[Chris]

I can name call as I please, as long as it isn't directed towards any member. What's the problem now?

Yes, you can. It's your reputation.

[Safety]

Yes, you can. It's your reputation.

LoL, on that schtick again?

[Dr. Who]

That's a nice claim. What do you offer to substantiate it? ...Nothing. It's just a vacuous accusation. Basically it shows your angry so you lash out.

I'm not angry. I'm just suggesting that if I were to follow your lead I would attribute your views to the gentlemen I listed who sought to justify their beliefs in rights of association (presumably along with those of their constituents). That this resulted in bad law only reinforces the problem with such attitudes. The laws were passed to avoid the open conflicts that resulted from people objecting to being treated as unequal citizens through denial of services and accommodations. The law didn't come first. It was reactive but in favor of the majority. It was also totally unconstitutional and self-serving. It spared the Courts from having to rule against white people in favor of blacks based on the existing impartial laws.