Vort

Democrats demonstrate their tolerance and love

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But, wouldn't it have been discriminatory for the guy to refuse to cater the event?

Only if the event were on the approved list of things you can't discriminate against.  (As opposed to the approved list of things any decent (aka liberal) person ought to discriminate against.)

Meanwhile, it occurs to me that the reason Democrats demonstrate more often than other parties has been right there under my nose the whole time and I never noticed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 10:26 AM, zil said:

Only if the event were on the approved list of things you can't discriminate against.  (As opposed to the approved list of things any decent (aka liberal) person ought to discriminate against.)

Meanwhile, it occurs to me that the reason Democrats demonstrate more often than other parties has been right there under my nose the whole time and I never noticed...

It's because democrats have more time to put towards protesting. People of other parties have work or school in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refuse to serve Republicans and get a standing O. Refuse to bake a same-sex wedding cake and pour your God-given artistic talent into an event that many religions consider sacred, and you get fined $150,000. Then folk wonder why the election turned out the way it did.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Refuse to serve Republicans and get a standing O. Refuse to bake a same-sex wedding cake and pour your God-given artistic talent into an event that many religions consider sacred, and you get fined $150,000. Then folk wonder why the election turned out the way it did.

Very true. I think bakers and fashion designers both have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish. But only the Christian will be called out for it, sadly. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Looks like we need to appoint @MormonGator as Governor of Oregon.

Lol. Too cold, too dark and above all else it's not Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Lol. Too cold, too dark and above all else it's not Florida.

Yeah... Gators are cold-blooded after all...  Lets not discriminate against the exothermic-ly challenged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Very true. I think bakers and fashion designers both have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish. But only the Christian will be called out for it, sadly. 

One of my friends on FB posted about M. Trump having the fashion dude refusing to dress her. She compared it to bakers who refuse to make cakes for same-sex weddings. Her very left sister posted that it is not an equal comparison. I never could understand her reasoning....something about one is for fashion and being completely volunteer (so, it's ok to "discriminate") and the other being a profit business (and therefore, not ok to "discriminate"). I finally had to stop reading it since I just couldn't see the distinction (in her eyes).

Can anyone explain this thought process to an obviously obtuse dunce (that's me, in case you missed it)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, beefche said:

Can anyone explain this thought process to an obviously obtuse dunce (that's me, in case you missed it)?

I don't get it either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
45 minutes ago, beefche said:

Can anyone explain this thought process to an obviously obtuse dunce (that's me, in case you missed it)?

Yes, it's really quite simple.  If there is any decision made to do or not do anything based on principles, then you need only ask one question: "Is the principle one that I agree with?"

If you do agree with it then you decide to support them no matter what.  And you make up any reason at all to justify it.  Logic is only tertiary to forwarding an agenda.  And usually only when it serves your needs.  So, just don't bother with that.

If you don't agree with it then you must start crying or screaming at the top of your lungs how the perpetrator is an insensitive, racist, nazi who has no brain.  Then cry out violation of rights and how your rights are more important than anyone else's rights.

All clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beefche said:

Can anyone explain this thought process to an obviously obtuse dunce (that's me, in case you missed it)?

My guess would be that gender and sexual identity, now perceived as akin to race, is something that cannot be discriminated against. Politics can be, based on the right of association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During this awful election, I've been trying to really understand the opponents viewpoint. I mean, I am actually trying to understand the fear, hatred, reasons for believing what they believe. I'm not looking to be convinced they are correct, but to understand.

This is just one example of a belief that I just don't understand. Why is it ok to "boycott" one thing but not the other? I really wish I had someone I thought could actually answer my questions without turning it into a tirade. I just don't know if any of my FB friends are in a place where they can do that. Which I find extremely sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beefche said:

During this awful election, I've been trying to really understand the opponents viewpoint. I mean, I am actually trying to understand the fear, hatred, reasons for believing what they believe. I'm not looking to be convinced they are correct, but to understand.

This is just one example of a belief that I just don't understand. Why is it ok to "boycott" one thing but not the other? I really wish I had someone I thought could actually answer my questions without turning it into a tirade. I just don't know if any of my FB friends are in a place where they can do that. Which I find extremely sad.

This is my observation...

It is part of the "victimhood" mindset, I think.  Where they feel they or a certain class of people, are victims.  So, when they are boycotted, then it is a grievance of oppression.  When others get boycotted, they don't associate the others as victims.  So they don't feel the same way about it and don't see that it has anything to do with oppression.  So, in that viewpoint, they can't see how both are the same.  And worse, they get upset that you deign to equate the two when their oppression is very dire.  So, on top of it, they see you as insensitive hence the ill-feelings towards you.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best distinction a leftist could make, is that if you don't like facing discrimination you can always stop being a Christian or a conservative; whereas you can't stop being gay or black.

(I'm not saying its a GOOD distinction; but I suspect it's the way they think.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The View is getting a lot of airtime on Hannity show.  From the clips Hannity plays, it makes me embarrassed to admit they represent women.  They are very poor examples of Womanhood and/or Feminism.  Their asinine vitriol against Trump and women supporters of Trump is frankly so embarrassing, I don't know how so many women continue to support that show... then I remember Bridezilla is widely watched by so many women...

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2016 at 4:37 PM, beefche said:

One of my friends on FB posted about M. Trump having the fashion dude refusing to dress her. She compared it to bakers who refuse to make cakes for same-sex weddings. Her very left sister posted that it is not an equal comparison. I never could understand her reasoning....something about one is for fashion and being completely volunteer (so, it's ok to "discriminate") and the other being a profit business (and therefore, not ok to "discriminate"). I finally had to stop reading it since I just couldn't see the distinction (in her eyes).

Can anyone explain this thought process to an obviously obtuse dunce (that's me, in case you missed it)?

From what I've gathered in debates with folks on the other side, here's how it works:

A business is considered a public resource, just like infrastructure or public services (like libraries).  Since it does business with the public, it has to be open to any and all customers for any and all purposes, and the personal beliefs, views and preferences of the owner cannot have any impact on it at all.

In other words, privately owned businesses must be run like public services.

Justification for this mentality is that the business makes use of public infrastructure like roads and fire department services, and of course if it happens to be the only such business in town, then it would be unfair to "deny" their services to anyone since they couldn't get those services somewhere else (which is a weak argument considering a Christian bakery in a town with 100 other bakeries would still be obligated to do what these people want.) 

The idea that anyone can lay claim to the services provided by a private business as if it were public is a perfectly natural side effect of a Socialistic perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now