Fu*%face Von Clownstick

climbhightree said:
Birthday cake, I'd have no problem making that for them. A wedding cake is a different level due to the marriage ceremony aspect. As to the tree's above their wedding, I would honestly have to think about it. I feel it is somewhat different though. Unlike a cake it isn't for a one time benifit/enjoyment.

Would you build a shed/house that you knew without a shadow of doubt was going to be used for evil purposes? I'd hope you wouldn't. For me making a wedding cake would be along the same lines (though probably less extreme).

We are all sinners, including myself. The difference is I try to recognize my sin and not continually live in it. I understand gay marriage is socially acceptable now, but that doesn't mean I have to morally except it too.

To provide a service for someone isn't always an acceptance of someone or of their personal life. A wedding cake is different as I explained before.
Click to expand...
How would you feel if someone refused you a service because you were a christian?
 
Arb23 said:
No need to wonder. I'd be very mad if someone took away my ability to vote for an issue or candidate that I support. Hmmm...
Click to expand...
I dont think that was the context of Rico's question. More along the line of what if you went into a resturant and they said sorry no service for you based on a personal trait of yours. Say skin color, hair style, cloths etc
 
owScott said:
How would you feel if someone refused you a service because you were a christian?
Click to expand...
I would be ok with that, 100% honest. I would then go shop somewhere else and tell my like minded friends that they may want to do the same.

So if a Buddhist baker rufed to make me a cake with Jesus's cross on it, I would just move on. I wouldn't be suing him or forcing him to make something (for something) against his beliefs. If I asked him to make me a dozen cupcakes (no special decorations) that is different...but if he still refused so what I'd move on to next shop.
 
owScott said:
I dont think that was the context of Rico's question. More along the line of what if you went into a resturant and they said sorry no service for you based on a personal trait of yours. Say skin color, hair style, cloths etc
Click to expand...
I understood the context. He's saying it's discrimination (and un-American even!) if someone votes a certain way on an issue that others may have an opposing view. It's not. It's called voting and it's a core part of our democracy. You can call the law / or bill or whatever's being voted on discriminatory, and it may in fact be, but the act of voting on it is decidedly not. Our country has a long history overturning or repealing / changing laws that are viewed as discriminatory today that may not have been 100 years ago. Such is society.
 
We really need to get back to and focus on why the senile moron from Delaware is arresting his political opponents on "trumped up" charges. This little side show on abortion, gays, cakes, and guns are not doing it for me. FOCUS people!
 
Arb23 said:
I understood the context. He's saying it's discrimination (and un-American even!) if someone votes a certain way on an issue that others may have an opposing view. It's not. It's called voting and it's a core part of our democracy. You can call the law / or bill or whatever's being voted on discriminatory, and it may in fact be, but the act of voting on it is decidedly not. Our country has a long history overturning or repealing / changing laws that are viewed as discriminatory today that may not have been 100 years ago. Such is society.
Click to expand...
Here is my read. It is about the defination freedom. Freedom is being allowed to do what you want if it doesnt affect others directly. Something percieved in your mind doesnt count. . Voting to not allow other people to engage in actions that dont effect others is unamerican. Example my burning the flag example.
 
Arb23 said:
We really need to get back to and focus on why the senile moron from Delaware is arresting his political opponents on "trumped up" charges. This little side show on abortion, gays, cakes, and guns are not doing it for me. FOCUS people!
Click to expand...
And you make this assumption based on what? Our legal system requires a trail with evidence and arguements from boths sides. You seems to completely abandon this when it suits your political narrative.
 
climbhightree said:
I would be ok with that, 100% honest. I would then go shop somewhere else and tell my like minded friends that they may want to do the same.

So if a Buddhist baker rufed to make me a cake with Jesus's cross on it, I would just move on. I wouldn't be suing him or forcing him to make something (for something) against his beliefs. If I asked him to make me a dozen cupcakes (no special decorations) that is different...but if he still refused so what I'd move on to next shop.
Click to expand...
Honestly I would do the same, my time is too valuable. However I would support these people s rights to stand up for themselves because I am not in their shoes.
 
owScott said:
Voting to not allow other people to engage in actions that dont effect others is unamerican. Example my burning the flag example.
Click to expand...
How so? We (our representatives to be more precise) often vote on things that restrict the actions of others. Laws are mostly to prevent people from doing things under penalty of arrest, imprisonment or death.
 
Arb23 said:
Yeah. Sure. Ok.
Click to expand...
That responses reads yep big assumption thats been feed to me.
Arb23 said:
How so? We (our representatives to be more precise) often vote on things that restrict the actions of others. Laws are mostly to prevent people from doing things under penalty of arrest, imprisonment or death.
Click to expand...
People have the freedom to burn the flag. Them burning the flag doesnt affect me. I find it offensive and insulting, however I would vote infavor of allowing them to do it. Voting to not allow it based on my dislike that has no direct impact on my life other than me being offended would be denying them of their freedom to do this therefore unamerican in my view. Simply denying others freedom is unamerican
 
Arb23 said:
How so? We (our representatives to be more precise) often vote on things that restrict the actions of others. Laws are mostly to prevent people from doing things under penalty of arrest, imprisonment or death.
Click to expand...
Voting on a speed limit is different than voting on allowing flag burning. One action, speeding affects others. The flag burning doesnt affect others. This is the defining difference.
 
owScott said:
That responses reads yep big assumption thats been feed to me.

People have the freedom to burn the flag. Them burning the flag doesnt affect me. I find it offensive and insulting, however I would vote infavor of allowing them to do it. Voting to not allow it based on my dislike that has no direct impact on my life other than me being offended would be denying them of their freedom to do this therefore unamerican in my view. Simply denying others freedom is unamerican
Click to expand...

Yeah - I actually agree with you on the flag issue. I wouldn't support a bill or law to ban it, but I find it offensive as well. Thank you for your service, by the way! I do understand where you're coming from, and it reads as heartfelt, so I won't debate it with you on an online forum called Fu*%face Von Clownstick lol...
 
Last edited:
Arb23 said:
Yeah - I actually agree with you on the flag issue. I wouldn't support a bill or law to ban it, but I find it offensive as well. Thank you for your service, by the way! I do understand where you're coming from, and it reads as heartfelt, so I won't debate it with you on an online forum called Fu*%face Von Clownstick lol...
Click to expand...
I think we may be closer in overall agreement. Understanding other people definations I think is key and where things can go astray.
 
I find it preposterous to believe that everyone here has carefully researched these issues, talked to people who know more about them, and thought long and deeply about each and every topic, and then just "happened" to come to the exact same conclusions as every other member of their "team", whether they fancy themselves as members of the blue team, or members of the red team. The level of groupthink, ideological conformity, and virtue signaling in political discussions is mind-boggling to me. When you outsource your thinking to the newsmodels on television, you begin to speak in unison whenever certain "hot button" issues come up. You play into the hands of those who seek to divide and control us.

Here's a question for the group:

What is one major, politicized issue, that is popular to talk about in mainstream media, where you firmly disagree with your team's stance, that you would admit to in an open forum? If you like wearing a blue hat, what issue do you completely disagree with from their official position? Likewise if you prefer wearing a red hat, where do you completely disagree with them? Major things only, not minutiae.
 
It's interesting that Congress actually passed a law to ban flag burning. It was struck down by the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional and a violation of first amendment free speech rights.

I'm not an expert on such things but that looks like a pretty good functioning system to me.
 
Arb23 said:
Should only read as not everyone has the same level of faith in our legal system after the last few years.
Click to expand...
Thats fine, but its what we got. Best to let it playout. You may not like the outcome but this how or system works. In my view the best system in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom