SCOTUS Rulings

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

And when do you assume I was born, the socialists were already in charge prior to 1964?

Try 1865.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

You don't seem to be grasping my point, so let me try this from another angle.

Going back to the artistic expression argument, should a painter (which by definition makes unique works) be forced to paint something against their beliefs, just because they make themselves available to the public? Should they be forced to paint pictures of naked people, if that violates their beliefs?

What if it was a Muslim painter, and someone asked him/her to paint a picture of Mohammed (which they view as forbidden in their beliefs)? Would they be forced to do so because they have a business, or would their beliefs allow them to decline the work?

A wedding cake is no different, because it requires not just baking talents, but also artistic talents for the design elements. They didn't come in to buy a ready-made cake (which I'm sure the bakery would have sold to them), they wanted one designed specifically for their "wedding". They wanted to force the baker to use his artistic talents in violation of his beliefs.

Now do you get my point?

An artist could refuse to paint nudes as a whole. But to paint nudes for only white people would be discrimination. A Muslim could refuse to paint any religious painting, and not just religious paintings that might offend Muslims. A baker can refuse to make wedding cakes altogether, instead of baking wedding cakes only for weddings they approve of.

All examples above are for the sake of conviction, yet they aren't being discriminatory.

This is of course if their business is open to all who walk in. Now, if privately contracted, independently of their open store, certainly they should have greater say and freedom in the details details of the work they can do.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

An artist could refuse to paint nudes as a whole. But to paint nudes for only white people would be discrimination. A Muslim could refuse to paint any religious painting, and not just religious paintings that might offend Muslims. A baker can refuse to make wedding cakes altogether, instead of baking wedding cakes only for weddings they approve of.

All examples above are for the sake of conviction, yet they aren't being discriminatory.

I thought you were some kind of anarchist? Which would mean you believe a baker should be able to bake whatever for whoever, or not, period.

But, once again, you side with the heathens and perverts against Christians and those who would identify as Libertarians.

Typical leftist hypocrisy. You rail against "religion being forced" on people while you demand humanism being forced on everyone. "Well, the baker can just not be a baker, hurr durr."

THIS is why no dialogue is possible. Your side wants us all re educated or dead, and we simply will not be either. Thus, the division in society is irreparable, there is no "one nation" left.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

An artist could refuse to paint nudes as a whole. But to paint nudes for only white people would be discrimination. A Muslim could refuse to paint any religious painting, and not just religious paintings that might offend Muslims. A baker can refuse to make wedding cakes altogether, instead of baking wedding cakes only for weddings they approve of.

In other words, you're advocating for a "do it our way, or don't do it at all" philosophy. Or in more common vernacular, "my way or the highway". In your world view, there's no room for personal decisions and responsibility, one must follow the state or not be allowed to do business.

That sound about right? Because even if that's not what you meant, that's certainly what you've presented here.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I thought you were some kind of anarchist? Which would mean you believe a baker should be able to bake whatever for whoever, or not, period.

But, once again, you side with the heathens and perverts against Christians and those who would identify as Libertarians.

Typical leftist hypocrisy. You rail against "religion being forced" on people while you demand humanism being forced on everyone. "Well, the baker can just not be a baker, hurr durr."

THIS is why no dialogue is possible. Your side wants us all re educated or dead, and we simply will not be either. Thus, the division in society is irreparable, there is no "one nation" left.

I am the Libertarian, borderline AnCap....thanks. I think all transactions should be voluntary. Persons that bake may do so or not for whatever reason they choose. If they are discriminatory- not only can the offended ignore them, but their supporters could say buy a mess of cupkakes for the sunday school kids. The market will make the decision if he propers or not. I think that as soon as you protect a class, or when there is discriminatory law against a class you elevate statism above individual, and group rights, and soon other laws will follow trying to balance a human condition that constantly tries by nature to improve things for themselves with little regard for others.
You cannot legislate equality of outcomes, because to do so you must be inequitable.

Here is a point I feel a Christian can show seperation. By treating people equitably, and looking out for the interests of those, even, from which you may receive no benifit from them. If someone crosses a line with your beleif system, you have the right to not associate, not do business with, but not to be unfair, or ungodly in your refusal.

I disagree with you that a gooberment of men, even godly, 1ness, men with lists of good things to wear, is desireable. To slightly correct a quote, All human power corrupts, Absolute human power corrupts absolutely. Only God by his perfect nature is exemp.

We shall forever disagree on that. Oh well, this, like my beard, my jeans, or my contemporary music, and my refusal to submit to persons having the title pastor, bishop, or pope, when I feel that they are simply trying to control my beleifs, rather than provide sound bible council, is simply an avoidence of tryanny of man or men. You have found- I think you said- you need the rules, you need a harsh and legalistic pastor. Very well....for you. I do not- but I'll argue for you to hsve a right to that. You would force me to cowtow to your view, that makes you the opposite of Aquila...in statist statements ...only in the color, flavor, and type of bondage you would choose for me.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

I You have found- I think you said- you need the rules, you need a harsh and legalistic pastor. Very well....for you..

What? I think you've got me confused with somebody else.

Can you support your libertarian anarcho-capitalist philosophy of government with a clear Biblical presentation? In other words, does the Bible teach libertarian anarcho-capitalism?

Is that the Kingdom we are to be preaching? A kingdom where anybody can do whatever they want as long as they don't "infringe on anyone else's freedom"?

Please present the Gospel of the Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist Kingdom.

[Esaias]

Sometimes I feel like I'm discussing politics and religion with the drunk guys at the local pub...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

I am the Libertarian, borderline AnCap...

I disagree with you that a gooberment of men, even godly, 1ness, men with lists of good things to wear, is desireable.

So instead you prefer a government of ungodly devil possessed antichrists?

Amazing what passes for Christianity, much less rational thought, these days.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

In other words, you're advocating for a "do it our way, or don't do it at all" philosophy. Or in more common vernacular, "my way or the highway". In your world view, there's no room for personal decisions and responsibility, one must follow the state or not be allowed to do business.

That sound about right? Because even if that's not what you meant, that's certainly what you've presented here.

What I'm saying is that when one incorporates, they agree to abide by existing civil statutes in most states that include not being able to discriminate against employees or customers on the basis of religion, gender, age, race, or sexuality. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker because of how they were treated with animosity by Colorado authorities. The SCOTUS did indicate that their decision wasn't a precedent to follow in every case, and also hinted that there was no blanket right to discriminate based on one's religion in business affairs.

If one's religion keeps them from serving the general public in business without discrimination, they can establish a private service and cater only to members or churches, refuse to make wedding cakes altogether, or seek a different trade.

Agree or not, incorporation to do business with the general public comes with strings attached, one is that you can't descriminate based on race, religion, age, gender, or sexual orientation.

We are to obey every ordinance of man.

Now, one can strive to change antidescrimination laws, but one cannot refuse to provide services as agreed upon.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What? I think you've got me confused with somebody else.

Can you support your libertarian anarcho-capitalist philosophy of government with a clear Biblical presentation? In other words, does the Bible teach libertarian anarcho-capitalism?

Is that the Kingdom we are to be preaching? A kingdom where anybody can do whatever they want as long as they don't "infringe on anyone else's freedom"?

Please present the Gospel of the Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist Kingdom.

Momentarily confused you with another poster. But the con guys here all argue the same tired points.