Baker who refused to make same-sex wedding cake wins U.S. Supreme Court case - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14921951
For me the argument here boils down between two things.

Does an owner of a business have the freedom to reject service to a customer or not; or does the state have prerogative to dictate to the owner of business whom he can serve and whom not.

I believe in classical liberal sense the state has no business in dictating to people whom they can associate with.

Note, this also relates to property rights. A business is property of its owner, hence the bakery is property of Mr. Jack Phillips here. Does he then have the right to associate his property with whom he wills? Or does the state have the right to tell him who can enter his private property and who can not?
Last edited by Albert on 06 Jun 2018 21:24, edited 1 time in total.
#14921952
Pants-of-dog wrote:Repeating your werid crap from another thread is pointless. I refuted in that thread.


No you didn't. You embarrassed yourself with your complete incompetence in debate and your lack of understanding as to how logic works.

Feel free to try again. Like I said, you want to make this an ethical debate, so lets have it.

Don't be a coward.

One Degree wrote:I enjoyed reading the logic, however it appears to be based upon accepting all semen is intended for procreation.


Not it doesn't that was qualified in the argument here:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Pregnancy prevention is not: the elimination of circumstances by which procreation and conception could take place, but the use of semen for non-procreative purposes when procreation was not only possible but the circumstances also permitted it.

Thus, homosexuality and bestiality are anti-procreative as they are a volitional deviation from natural sexuality, they are a wasting of semen that could be used for procreation (no circumstance would make this permissible, except the possible non-existence of all women in the universe).

Similarly, contraception is a wasting of semen within the bounds of marriage wherein a heterosexual couple could produce offspring but instead deviates from that practice. Contraception, homosexuality, and bestiality must, therefore, all be regarded as anti-procreative on these aforementioned grounds.

Now, within the context of heterosexual marriage, if a couple is unable (by the observable laws of nature) to produce offspring (I.e. during pregnancy, menstruation, or post-menopause) then non-procreative sex acts between them would not be ipso facto immoral because such acts would not be anti-procreative or an act of pregnancy prevention (no circumstance of actualization exists and therefore the semen may be used but is not "wasted").

Hence, getting your dick sucked when your wife is on the rag, is pregnant, is breastfeeding (for most women) or is post-menopausal, would not be an anti-procreative sex act under the above definitions, no matter whether she spits or swallows.


This also follows given the definitions (please note sections in bold):

Victoribus Spolia wrote:III. Definitions and Explanations

Terms To Be Defined:

1.Destroying: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).

2. Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality: Denotative: (1) Heterosexual Contraception or Pregnancy Prevention, (2) Bestiality, (3) Homosexuality, (4) Pedophilia. et. al.

Premise One Explanation:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.

3- The definition of destroying is an adequate descriptor of the effect in #2 above.

Premise Two Explanation (With Corollary):

1- For every potential-person there is a corresponding actual person. All actual persons were once potential persons who, through intentional or unintentional procreative sexuality, were transitioned (actualized) into actual persons.

2- If there is no potential person in a given situation, then there can be no, and is no, corresponding actual person. That is, if there never was a potential person, then there could never be an actual person, for all actual persons originate from being a potential person.

3- Therefore, to make a potential person become a non-potential person (see definition of “destroying” above) is to make the corresponding actual person to become a non-actual person. This is because, without a potential person, no actual person can come into existence by the natural order of events (see premise one explanation #1).

Conclusion:

This conclusion follows given (P1) and (P2). If X is Y, and Y is B, then X is B.


One Degree wrote:Since only a very small portion is actually used in procreation then it must be assumed the rest was not intended for procreation.


Which may be true, but that is not what my position is arguing.

The sperm is only relevant to the argument inasmuch as it is necessary in the actualization of potential persons.

One Degree wrote:If wasting of sperm is acceptable in attempts to procreate, then there is no reason to place value on sperm being produced not used to procreate.


This is not my position, my position would argue that the issue lies in the commitment to the battle, not how many casualties may result. Ultimately, potential persons, given a natural course of events, do not necessitate actualization by the contribution of 100% of one's sperm in a single ejaculation, but that is irrelevant as to whether the sex act was anti-procreative. What makes it intentionally anti-procreative is if NO sperm were used for procreative purposes when such was ordinarily possible.

that act IS an intentionally anti-procreative act....a bit of goo squeezing out of pussy lips is not. They are not logically the same thing.

One Degree wrote:Your logic would also make involuntary ejaculation a sin.


No it doesn't, because that is not an intentionally anti-procreative act.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 06 Jun 2018 21:34, edited 2 times in total.
#14921958
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No you didn't. You embarrassed yourself with your complete incompetence in debate and your lack of understanding as to how logic works.

Feel free to try again. Like I said, you want to make this an ethical debate, so lets have it.

Don't be a coward.


No, I am not going to help you go off on an irrelevant tangent just because you are incorrect about the fact that your argument was refuted.
#14921959
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I am not going to help you go off on an irrelevant tangent just because you are incorrect about the fact that your argument was refuted.


Your claims can therefore be safely dismissed.

Likewise, you must not want to discuss ethics that much after all, so your bitching about the U.S. Constitution's ruling being immoral shall also be rightly dismissed because you don't want to have that debate anyway.
#14921965
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that there is no rational reason for discrimination against gays


The Rational reason is that homosexuality is logically a form of murder, and murder is immoral.

Pants-of-dog wrote:has already been discussed and rejected.


Your personal feelings are noted. No refutation or argument has been given here, nor is your dismal failure elsewhere relevant to my challenge against you now.

If you are unable and unwilling to argue against my position, please feel free to stick around for my personal amusement.

Thanks.
#14921969
Pants-of-dog wrote:Being refused service because you are gay is an actual problem.

Not being allowed to discriminate against gays is not actually oppression.

Refusing to supply a good or service to advance an act you consider sinful or to celebrate the same is not discrimination. But having the government tell you that you have to supply that good or service in violation of your conscience or be severely punished is oppression.

But I was not just talking about this incident.

Fo example, which number do you think is higher: the number of LGBT people assaulted by religious homophobes, or the number of Christians assaulted by gay bigots?

But this case, and cases similar to it, is what this thread is about. Though if I want to find virulent hatred of Christians, all I have to do is go to comment threads on articles about this case, or similar cases, and I can find it in abundance. There are a lot of Christophobes out there.
#14921972
@Pants-of-dog
He did not refuse the couple service, as I already pointed out to you and you acknowledged. He refused to make a specific cake with a specific message on it. As was also pointed out, he also refused to make Halloween cakes. Is this discriminatory against Wiccans? If the couple had been straight and wanted a cake with the statement "support gay marriage" on, and he had refused, would that be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation?
#14921975
One Degree wrote:@Victoribus Spolia
Sorry to cause you to unnecessarily repeat yourself. I realized after I posted that my brain was too fuzzy and I should have taken a nap first. :)


Senior Center keep you up late again for the Bingo Tournament? :excited:
#14921977
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The Rational reason is that homosexuality is logically a form of murder, and murder is immoral.

Your personal feelings are noted. No refutation or argument has been given here, nor is your dismal failure elsewhere relevant to my challenge against you now.

If you are unable and unwilling to argue against my position, please feel free to stick around for my personal amusement.

Thanks.


You can pretend I did not already refute it.

I am not going to pretend with you.

If you have to resort to that thread, it is rational to say that there is no rational support for homophobia.

————————

Doug64 wrote:Refusing to supply a good or service to advance an act you consider sinful or to celebrate the same is not discrimination. But having the government tell you that you have to supply that good or service in violation of your conscience or be severely punished is oppression.


Yes, refusing service because of homophobia is discrimination.

It does not matter if your homophobia is because you believe in stories that say it is sinful.

And being forced to do your job is not oppression.

But this case, and cases similar to it, is what this thread is about. Though if I want to find virulent hatred of Christians, all I have to do is go to comment threads on articles about this case, or similar cases, and I can find it in abundance. There are a lot of Christophobes out there.


And what has been the impact of the “Christophobes”?

Are Christians under-represented in politics, military, and places of power?

Do they have to worry about violent attacks?

Can they be fired or refused housing for being Christian?

No.

Yet LGBT people have to worry about all these things.

—————————

@Heisenberg

I agree, but I am now discussing homophobia in general an dnot just this particular incident.

But thank you for the clarification.
#14921979
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not going to pretend with you.


In Sum: "It's too much to debate this matter after claiming that anti-homosexual beliefs are irrational."

I have the rational argument, you are refusing to engage.

Your failure to defend your accusations against the Christian Right are noted.

Thanks.
#14921986
Victoribus Spolia wrote:In Sum: "I'm too much of a little bitch to debate this matter after claiming that anti-homosexual beliefs are irrational."

I have the rational argument, you are refusing to engage.

Your failure to defend your accusations against the Christian Right are noted.

Thanks.


Well, if we are down to personal attacks, this conversation is no longer fruitful in any way.

Have a good one, VS, and say hi to your wife for me.
#14921997
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, refusing service because of homophobia is discrimination.

It does not matter if your homophobia is because you believe in stories that say it is sinful.

And being forced to do your job is not oppression.

Refusal to be a party to sin or celebration of the same isn’t discrimination, and belief that homosexuality is sinful is not homophobic.

And having the government demand that you — a private individual — operate your business in a way that violates your conscience is oppression.

And what has been the impact of the “Christophobes”?

In this case, the Christophobes on the commission did serious damage to the baker’s business.
#14922002
Pants-of-dog wrote:What does this have to do with my point that a large number of people care so deeply about an issue (that does not affect them) that they need to limit the rights of minorities?


Its interesting you are all over this thread claiming people don't understand yet clearly it is you who do not understand. If you actually read what I post it's simple. Your point is just your feelings (as much as you display here on POFO your disdain for using them in arguments) it has nothing to do with the constitution. You are just parroting these feelings as if you know the heart mind and sole of the person who disagrees with you. @Beren has been pretty spot on in regarding the individual baker. The constitution protects the minority however it doesn't give them majority power.
Last edited by Finfinder on 06 Jun 2018 22:41, edited 3 times in total.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]