freemindfade

Joined

• started 193 topics
• posted 5,163 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by freemindfade

• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  The reason he was willing to sell the cakes he had already made is that he made the cakes for his business, not for a specific occasion.
  NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO YOUR LABOR, REGARDLESS OF THEIR GROUP IDENTITY.

  This
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  The market doesn't make an imposition on people, that is the government's job

  • Capitalism > Discrimination laws (more effective and aligned with culture)
  • Free speech will defeat bad speech
  • It's the baker's loss, not the gay couples

  Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake with a swastika on it?

  Does a business have a right to discriminate based on its owner personal values? Do individuals who own businesses have a right to exercise their own judgment when doing business?

  Fight for maximum freedom and choice rather than authoritarian control and central planning.
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Hating religion is easy

  Being pragmatic and guarding against making sweeping blanket laws and restrictions takes more thought

  Many of you have traded your magical view of "jehovah" for a magical view of government. The government is not your friend, do not feed it. Laws are not your friend, laws should increase rights, not take them away. If you believe the government is some benevolent organization looking out for your actual welfare, I have a watchtower to sell you.

  
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Free speech will correct bad speech
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Blown away I am not at all wrong. He ‘provides a service’ for straights -making personalised wedding cakes. He does not provide this service for those that are gay. This is called discrimination. The law should always be above somebody’s misguided conscience.

  If you knew someone hated gay people and was being forced to make you a cake, would you as an individual really want a cake from them? You need to think more of the big picture ramifications, the market is going to make these people extinct because gay people will not want to use them and those of us that are not gay non-bigots won't want to use them either.

  The knee-jerk reaction to take away rights can hurt not just them but everyone including you and the gay community, the moral of the story being, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. And again can you tell me how YOU john free, could tell if a baker, that didn't say anything more than "we are too busy, sorry," is a victory for gay people? The baker STILL discriminates, the only thing changing is his speech. That means no solution was achieved. You will STILL have to find a baker that isn't a bigot to make your cake.

  Its not about feelings its about logic

  Is the goal to stick it to religious people? Or to increase rights for everyone? I want the gay couples to get their cake, and they will. Stop making the government the referee, its not a good move
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  If someone wanted a MAGA cake making and a gay baker refused, would that baker be threatened and harassed and prosecuted for it? The law should not be used as a club for certain groups. If it is, then there is something wrong with the law. This decision corrected that in this case.

  My point exactly
  
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  The law SHOULD protect these people against discrimination in the service industry.

  But the law won't. All they have to do is say sorry, I'm booked. You can't ban how people think. You can shame them in nonexistence online, and censor what they say, but you can't criminalize thoughts. Laws just give people a false sense of accomplishment, beating those bad guys.

  The law will not make homophobic people make cakes for gay people, it will simply limit their speech. End of story, they can still refuse service and give zero reasons. Discrimination still fully intact.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  I believe free speech will correct bad speech and I also believe capitalism is a greater force for progress than anti-discrimination laws.

  Jim Crow

  Case and point, Jim Crow laws were ENFORCED segregation by the government. Why is that significant? Because a free market was causing people/businesses in the south who were NOT racist, to choose money over bigotry. The racists (people and businesses) clearly saw this as an advantage, not in their favor, so what did they do? Use the government to create laws that FORCED businesses to segregate. So society and business typically do not discriminate, yes there are and always will be bigots, but the free market idea is about making money. Not oppressing groups.

  Free Speech not Religious Issue

  What is seldom mentioned in this Colorado issue is the baker was willing to sell them any cake they had, so in effect, he was not discriminating against them for being gay as individuals, but when it came to preparing one of his unique and special cakes for the wedding, he didn't want to. THAT should be protected. It is his choice not to work with someone. What if it was a gay bakery and a Christian wanted them to put on a cake a homophobic scripture? Shouldn't the owners have the right to say I find this offensive (personally) and choose not to do it? What if a black baker is asked to make a cake for a skinhead wedding and put things on it that are highly offensive to them?

  I get it, I hate that people are bigots, especially based on religion and the bible. But we have to preserve rights. Every time an opponent does something we don't like, we run to the government to make them stop, The government then usually would infringe on rights, for all! They basically make a blunt object to clobber them with that can then be used for others in a malevolent way.

  We need to be careful. When you censor, when you restrict, you often embolden the other side and threaten multiple rights. It's a radical idea, but maybe we should allow people to openly discriminate, let them show who they are, the market will put them out of business because most people object to this behavior. If you have the government make more laws, they simply change their speech, still discriminate quietly without the burden of proof, and we are all left with the laws. This will probably not ever happen so we need to make clear and careful lines and consider all rights, just not what makes us angry, it's hard to play devil's advocate, but its the only way to proceed logically.

  Why would you want someone who is bigoted towards you to make something for you?
  

  Why would you want to be employed by someone you don't want to work for? To me, that is the issue. He was turning down employment in a way, not disallowing people to buy his damn cakes.
• 
  49

  Favourite Quirky / Low Budget / Non-Mainstream Movies

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  so the recent topic about film franchises got me thinking.

  sure, we all love the big budget, mainstream releases that are so successful they spawn never-ending (it sometimes seems) sequels.

  we could watch marvel and star-wars movies for the rest of our lives (and we might just ...).. but y'know what i love?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  Tremors

  Also,Road house, what a pony loaf of a film, a list actors in a c list film.
• 
  170

  UK justice..

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  tommie robinson has reported often about what he sees as the demise of british society by the imposition of 'sharia' norms.. https://www.infowars.com/update-tommy-robinson-gets-13-months-for-livestreaming-outside-courthouse/?utm_source=nightly+newsletter&utm_campaign=9e3ceb30f6-email_campaign_2018_05_25_03_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e12661a83c-9e3ceb30f6-38680565.

  yesterday he was jailed for 13 months for reporting outside a court in the uk.

  his was a non violent offence.. what no community service?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  freemindfade

  1984