JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild 176 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • DJS
    DJS

    Homey,

    And you would be wrong. You got a problem with sex, huh? And you hate gays. Geesh, you reallly have some hang-ups. I'm glad, very glad, that what you think is not only the minorty viewpoint in the developed world but has been determined unconstitutional in the US and in many other countries.

    From an earlier OP:

    Organizations and businesses are egoist, which means their decisions are typically based on self interest and that this is just and proper. Profit is not a dirty word, for example. Capitalism was built on this, and it works well – to a point.

    The U.S. government rests on the foundation of the Constitution (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and general welfare for all), and operates typically in a utilitarian manner, (for the common good), which means that actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals, or all of society, and would seek a balance of justice, freedom and fairness. The Constitution (which was a revolutionary document crafted by visionaries) is predicated on these concepts.

    Balancing these two views is the skill-set which makes great countries. Both are correct. One isn’t ‘right’ and one isn’t ‘wrong.’ Governments in capitalistic countries seek to create a thriving business environment for a strong economy while balancing the need for regulation (environment, social, etc.), justice and fairness for all. But governments, according to Adam Smith’s perfect model, shouldn’t directly support or subsidize businesses, unless those businesses impact the country’s ability to feed and protect itself. Otherwise, failing businesses should be allowed to fail. Textiles? Let them go to Mexico and replace textiles with semi-conductors. Banks? Let them fail and be absorbed by other banks. Chrysler? Let it go the way of the wind and see what type of Phoenix, more beautiful and efficient, is re-born in its place. The recent bailout of the banks deemed to be TBTF (too big to fail) was more political response than reality. Other banks would have absorbed the failed ones, and the economy would have rebounded stronger for it. But many weren’t able to accept the short-term political and economic impact.

    That’s the way Adam Smith envisioned a perfect economic model. He was right. But we humans – and our congressmen/women - don’t want the textile industry to go away if we depend on it for food or political power. We don’t want Chrysler to fail if we work for Chrysler or within the supply chain. And so on. The egoist, some of which rail against government controls, etc., seeks assistance from the universalist when they need it (bail me out, subsidize me, build a wall around me, keep those mean Chinese away, increase tariffs, etc.). As expected. The egoist will always think of themselves first and last.

    The egoist (businesses) also seeks assistance from the universalist (government) by lobbying for and demanding better roads, schools, airports, utilities, etc. to help its business thrive.

    So it comes off as more than a bit hypocritical for a business, a completely egoist enterprise, to think it can serve only who it wishes, especially when it has asked and gotten so much from the government – which has a competing interest of the common good for all – that has helped make their business thrive. And how many of you haters have or have had government backed school and/or home loans, lived in subsidized housing, were on food stamps, welfare, WIC, worker's comp, etc., etc.. To paint with such a broad brush about the mean ole violent government, especially when one has benefited from it so much, is hypocritical.

    Those businesses which discriminate against others, even or especially based on their own peronal relgious beliefs, are on very shaky ground when it comes to the U.S. egoist/universalist capitalistic environment and the U.S. Constitution. To try to hide behind religion is a sham, and the courts have consistently upheld the rights of all citizens when they faced such discrimination. Courts in state after state are ruling that discriminating against gays is unconstitutional and numerous anti-gay marriage laws have been overturned (many of these decisions are currently stayed based on appeal).

    Deal with it haters.

  • DJS
    DJS

    Greta's dad, oh, that changes everything. I'm glad they lost the court case; I wish harm on no one, but they should have seen this coming, and their lawyer especially should have seen this coming. Read my previous post.

  • mrhhome
    mrhhome

    Cofty

    So should a shop have the right to put a "No blacks" sign in their window?

    My best friend in high school was black. I had several unpleasant encounters with the police, because they assumed that a white kid in a black neighborhood was looking for drugs. One of my college roommates was black.

    I would find this behavior deeply offensive. Not only would I not give them my business, I would tell my friends about the sign.

    Having said that, I believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. Likewise, I have the right to refuse to give them my business for any reason at any time.

    Obviously, the law disagrees with me on this issue on both fronts.

  • cofty
    cofty

    mrhhome - Are you avoiding the hard question?

    Should a shop have the right to put a "No blacks" sign in their window?

  • DJS
    DJS

    Homey,

    Businesses typically thrive because of the public/private partnership. Businesses put up capital, create vision and apply talents and energies to make it successful. Very much needed. Governments build schools, roads, utilities and all of the other infrastructure that helps that business thrive. Government has a right, a compelling right, to expect those businesses to serve everyone since - like everyone - they have benefited from those government services and infrastructure. Your viewpoint is not only wrong it is shallow and immature. You do not understand constitutional democracies and the universalist approach. You clearly understand the selfish egoist approach.

  • mrhhome
    mrhhome

    DJS

    You are such an elder... you may have rejected JW teachers... but you are still an elder at heart... I am curious... are you still in the JW?

    And how many of you haters have or have had government backed school and/or home loans, lived in subsidized housing, were on food stamps, welfare, WIC, worker's comp, etc., etc..

    Actually, I stopped doing business with the federal government, because I finally realized that it really was corrupt. It has hurt business, but I do not regret the decision. It was the right thing to do.

    We have begun homeschooling our kids, because the public school system is hosed. (And our kids went to a very good good school.)

    I have refused SBA back loans, on the matter of principle, even when we desperately needed them.

    Yes, I am also deeply disturbed by the collusion between government and big business. The middle class is getting screwed by everybody.

  • mrhhome
    mrhhome

    DJS

    Government has a right, a compelling right, to expect those businesses to serve everyone

    Who is John Galt?

  • DJS
    DJS

    Homey,

    I quit the Borg a long time ago - 20 years ago. I've been living life during that time. Research who I am on this site; your attempts to dis me are lame, and each time you post you make your argument weaker. So keep posting.

    You do business with the government every time you use a highway, a utility, public transportation, unemployment benefits, hire someone, get hired by someone, etc. etc. etc.

  • mrhhome
    mrhhome

    Research who I am on this site

    Actually, I don't intend to waste that much time on you.

  • Quendi
    Quendi

    I just wanted to say that I have benefited from reading this discussion. The specious arguments advanced by mrhhome and those who agree with him have been ably refuted here. I am not troubled by their presentation because they remind me that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That is particularly true in societies which are governed by rule of law because it is easy to believe that the absence of armed civil strife means that all civil rights have been secured.

    I witnessed and lived through the civil rights movement in the United States as first blacks and then other people of color pushed back against entrenched discrimination. I saw the women's liberation movement blossom and bear fruit in the same soil. Now it is sexual minorities who are broadening the spectrum and definition of human rights. If I have been surprised by anything in the GLBT movement, it is the speed of the progress that has been made these last ten years in this country and elsewhere. Perhaps this is what mrhhome and others of his persuasion have found most unsettling. It has not been the advances themselves they have found as disturbing as much as their rapidity and growing acceptance. Mrhhome claims to have friends who are gay, Democrats and Baptists and whose philosophies are markedly different from his own. Good for him. But I have to wonder about the degree and intensity of those relationships because based on the sentiments he has shared here, I can only believe they are superficial and shallow.

    Quendi

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit