Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on February 26, 2019, 10:54:43 AM
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47375076
An Amtrak train with 183 passengers on board has been stalled in the snow in Oregon since Sunday night after hitting a tree that fell on the tracks.
Amtrak: clobbering the Left's mass transit dreams, and global warming alarmism at the same time. Good job, guys!
-
No, no, no, no..you got it all wrong. Cold and a lot of snow is caused by Globular Worming. So is having trees just fall over, fainting from the cold which is caused by Globular Worming. If it's cold here, it must be worm there and the soil becomes unstable due to the changes in the seasons which is caused by Globular Worming.
-
Picking local isolated events really doesn't support the argument that
global warming I mean climate change isn't happening.
If you haven't gotten the memo the term, Global Warming, has been dead for quite a few years.
-
Picking local isolated events really doesn't support the argument that global warming I mean climate change isn't happening.
If you haven't gotten the memo the term, Global Warming, has been dead for quite a few years.
Even after the term "Global Warming" fell out of vogue, there were predictions that all snow fall would be gone by now. It's hard to take climate change as a theory seriously when it's biggest proponents are always making big, dire predictions that are repeatedly proved wrong by the passage of time.
-
Even after the term "Global Warming" fell out of vogue, there were predictions that all snow fall would be gone by now. It's hard to take climate change as a theory seriously when it's biggest proponents are always making big, dire predictions that are repeatedly proved wrong by the passage of time.
I agree, they should of tossed the "shock and awe" yellowdog reporting and talked about the gradual changes over time and perhaps how we as a global society can adapt.
-
I agree, they should of tossed the "shock and awe" yellowdog reporting and talked about the gradual changes over time and perhaps how we as a global society can adapt.
That would make sense. It would also make certain people less money.
If they went with "climate resiliency" to begin with they might have gotten some bipartisan support.
-
Picking local isolated events really doesn't support the argument that global warming I mean climate change isn't happening.
If you haven't gotten the memo the term, Global Warming, has been dead for quite a few years.
Of course.
-
AOC says we are all going to die in 12 years if we don’t implement communism now. The Amtrak folks will just be a few of the early victims.
-
I agree, they should of tossed the "shock and awe" yellowdog reporting and talked about the gradual changes over time and perhaps how we as a global society can adapt.
But then there would be no crisis to use to transform the entire economy.
As I've stated REPEATEDLY, if the global warming climate change (until they have to use another new term) people were actually serious in decreasing carbon emissions, they would be pushing nuclear power hard. They don't. In fact, they oppose it. Instead they push fairies and unicorns and windmills.
Which shows what their real goal is.
-
were actually serious in decreasing carbon emissions, they would be pushing nuclear power hard. They don't. In fact, they oppose it.
This too. I take exactly zero people seriously who push "ZOMG we have to do something!" but refuse to say "nuclear".
-
^^^ The Government, could, however, do its part by opening up Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste repository. The dry-cask storage at individual power plants may come back to bite us in the ankle some day.
-
Picking local isolated events really doesn't support the argument that global warming I mean climate change isn't happening.
If you haven't gotten the memo the term, Global Warming, has been dead for quite a few years.
But the reverse is apparently true. AGW minions are always pointing to weather events and proclaiming that they prove climate change is happening.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47375076
Amtrak: clobbering the Left's mass transit dreams, and global warming alarmism at the same time. Good job, guys!
This sort of thing predates Amtrak:
http://cprr.org/Museum/Stranded_Streamliner_1952/index.html
-
^^^ The Government, could, however, do its part by opening up Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste repository. The dry-cask storage at individual power plants may come back to bite us in the ankle some day.
It already is. I just read an article reporting that the company that owns three shuttered nuclear plants in New England (Maine, Connecticut, and ??) just won a court award of, IIRC, over $1 billion to cover the expenses of maintaining the spent fuel storage at the three sites.
-
But the reverse is apparently true. AGW minions are always pointing to weather events and proclaiming that they prove climate change is happening.
I agree... Climate Change, Anti-Abortion (yea I went there), Gun Control, Anti-Gay, Anti-Same Sex Marriage, Green Deal, The Wall, etc are just political/single issue items to force the supporters (of those issues) will (sometimes with a gun or fines) onto those who do not agree with them and make them conform.
-
^^^ The Government, could, however, do its part by opening up Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste repository. The dry-cask storage at individual power plants may come back to bite us in the ankle some day.
Or we could build nukular plants that can consume said "waste" instead of storing it for 200k years. Technology that, I'm pretty sure, already exists.
-
I agree... Climate Change, Anti-Abortion (yea I went there), Gun Control, Anti-Gay, Anti-Same Sex Marriage, Green Deal, The Wall, etc are just political/single issue items to force the supporters (of those issues) will (sometimes with a gun or fines) onto those who do not agree with them and make them conform.
:rofl:
-
:rofl:
Why the :rofl:?
-
AOC says we are all going to die in 12 years if we don’t implement communism now. The Amtrak folks will just be a few of the early victims.
Atlas Shrugged, Climate Change Edition
(Been musing on AS lately, what with the news coming out of Venezuela.)
-
Why the :rofl:?
Its Rabbit Season!
-
Atlas Shrugged, Climate Change Edition
(Been musing on AS lately, what with the news coming out of Venezuela.)
You don't need to just look at Venezuela. Some of these jokers in Congress are using the Wesley Mouch parts of Atlas Shrugged as their Operations Manual.
-
Or we could build nukular plants that can consume said "waste" instead of storing it for 200k years. Technology that, I'm pretty sure, already exists.
I don't claim to be a physicist, but I often wonder if American nuclear power building/engineering continued instead of being mothballed in the 80s, would spent fuel from the bigger plants be refined to be used in smaller reactors and spent fuel from the smaller plants be refined down for even smaller reactors, and so forth until it basically inert or very low in radioactivity.
-
Why the :rofl:?
I'm assuming it's because you claimed the "Anit-Same Sex Marriage" side is all about coercion, when it is those conscientious objectors that are having their missions, work, and livelihoods destroyed by the power of the state.
-
I'm assuming it's because you claimed the "Anit-Same Sex Marriage" side is all about coercion, when it is those conscientious objectors that are having their missions, work, and livelihoods destroyed by the power of the state.
and the folks who want to marry their same sex partner have gone through years of that prior to recent times. It's not all one sided.
-
and the folks who want to marry their same sex partner have gone through years of that prior to recent times. It's not all one sided.
It is one-sided, and I was laughing because you're so wrong, it's hilarious.
-
and the folks who want to marry their same sex partner have gone through years of that prior to recent times. It's not all one sided.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It seems odd that the principle you are supporting is "We must destroy the lives of people who act contrary to what the majority wants!"
-
It is one-sided, and I was laughing because you're so wrong, it's hilarious.
How is it wrong?
Gun control folks want to ban or limit gun ownership by law on those who don't shsre their belief.
Anti gay marriage only want same sex marriages by law, they wsnt to control those who want to marry their same sex partner by making it illegal.
It's about controlling those who don't share their beliefs.
Don't like guns, don't buy one. Don't like gay marriage don't have one. Believe in climate change, change your own lifestyle, don't force others.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It seems odd that the principle you are supporting is "We must destroy the lives of people who act contrary to what the majority wants!"
If you are open for the general public in terms of business you can't discriminate again someone who has different beliefs than you. If you will make a wedding cake for a straight couple, you can't refuse to make a cake for a gay couple.
Now if you're a hobbyist cake maker who makes cakes for say members of your church community, by all rights you can pick and choose who you can make cakes for.
-
If you are open for the general public in terms of business you can't discriminate again someone who has different beliefs than you. If you will make a wedding cake for a straight couple, you can't refuse to make a cake for a gay couple.
So much for that live and let live attitude. If someone wants to make cakes for all but 3% of the population, they aren't hurting anyone. Why can't you people leave them alone? By the way, I know someone who tries to add to her meager income by working as a wedding photographer. People with your attitude take food out of her kids' mouths. And it's not even because of whatever money she doesn't get from same-sex couples. It's because she has to be very guarded about talking to potential clients. If not, she'll be targeted by the NPCs, or even have legal action taken against her. 'Cuz love wins, right? Rainbows and tolerance, yay! You're on the side of the bullies.
How is it wrong?
...Anti gay marriage only want same sex marriages by law, they wsnt to control those who want to marry their same sex partner by making it illegal.
Are you even listening to what you're saying? You can't control someone by not recognizing their marriage. There was nothing stopping homosexuals from having fake wedding ceremonies and pretending to be married, living together, etc. We know, because they were already doing that. People like myself just didn't want to bring government into it.
-
...People like myself just didn't want to bring government into it.
Because, predictably, it would bring the iron heel of government against dissenters... as it has.
(Btw, that was impressive, charby. Global warming Climate change to gay marriage in 14 posts. Not a record for APS, but probably a record for switching controversies.)
-
Because, predictably, it would bring the iron heel of government against dissenters... as it has.
(Btw, that was impressive, charby. Global warming Climate change to gay marriage in 14 posts. Not a record for APS, but probably a record for switching controversies.)
He also brought in abortion, because how dare anyone try to control people by not letting them kill their kids. And while we're on the subject:
http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/28/wife-decided-abort-unborn-gay-son/
-
It's the difference between "acceptance" and "approval".
At first they just wanted everyone to accept their lifestyle. (Allow for it, if you will.)
Now they demand you give your approval and not only accept but help promote it.
While most will accept it (had to deny that some people are gay), it doesn't mean we have to approve of it, and violate our own morals in doing so.
-
So much for that live and let live attitude. If someone wants to make cakes for all but 3% of the population, they aren't hurting anyone. Why can't you people leave them alone? By the way, I know someone who tries to add to her meager income by working as a wedding photographer. People with your attitude take food out of her kids' mouths. And it's not even because of whatever money she doesn't get from same-sex couples. It's because she has to be very guarded about talking to potential clients. If not, she'll be targeted by the NPCs, or even have legal action taken against her. 'Cuz love wins, right? Rainbows and tolerance, yay! You're on the side of the bullies.
Doors and services were open for general public. Same reason you can't have a white's only public drinking fountain.
I have no problem with any group that is not open to the general public to exclude whomever/whatever they want, like a private club, group or whatever.
Are you even listening to what you're saying? You can't control someone by not recognizing their marriage. There was nothing stopping homosexuals from having fake wedding ceremonies and pretending to be married, living together, etc. We know, because they were already doing that. People like myself just didn't want to bring government into it.
In Iowa the official document for the union of 2 people, says "Marriage License". I can't speak for the rest of the states, but in Iowa it has been a governmental term for decades. Being legally married does afford either party in the marriage benefits, such as filing taxes jointly, next of kinship, etc. Controlling who a person can legally marry is no different than a anti gun person trying to control what firearms a person can possess. It is nothing more than pushing beliefs by law onto people who don't agree with those beliefs. If someone doesn't want a same sex marriage, then don't get one.
If you don't want government in it, let's do away with state issued marriage (or what ever they call it in your state) licenses, it would make no minor children divorces at lot easier.
-
It's the difference between "acceptance" and "approval".
At first they just wanted everyone to accept their lifestyle. (Allow for it, if you will.)
Now they demand you give your approval and not only accept but help promote it.
While most will accept it (had to deny that some people are gay), it doesn't mean we have to approve of it, and violate our own morals in doing so.
Some folks couldn't/wouldn't accept (tolerate) it or at least hold their nose, so there was a reaction.
No different than the folks who decided to 24/7 open carry in the coffee houses to shove it in peoples faces.
I agree acceptance (or a very weak toleration) is far different from approval. Also when in the public, you need to play by the rules of society if you want to keep your livelihood flowing.
-
Because, predictably, it would bring the iron heel of government against dissenters... as it has.
(Btw, that was impressive, charby. Global warming Climate change to gay marriage in 14 posts. Not a record for APS, but probably a record for switching controversies.)
Supposed to be expressing my opinion that Climate Change Belief is mostly about forcing ones beliefs on others that don't agree by law, much like other contentious single issues.
In all fairness, the story linked in the OP had nothing about Climate Change in it.
-
Personally, I think any person or business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason they choose. Just be open and up front about it (maybe require a sign).
But no one seems to like that idea. I think forcing everyone to be open and up front about their beliefs and prejudices would be better overall.
-
Doors and services were open for general public. Same reason you can't have a white's only public drinking fountain.
I have no problem with any group that is not open to the general public to exclude whomever/whatever they want, like a private club, group or whatever.
That sounds a lot like you're imposing your beliefs on other people. Because you are.
One of the big problems with the same-sex marriage movement was (and is) that you're demanding the law be changed, in order to comply with the law. Or demanding that traditions change, in order to comply with tradition. In other words, you insist that "we do things a certain way" (serve everyone, no matter what they're asking you to do), while attacking other people who say "we do things a certain way" (only recognize marriage that includes both sexes).
You're also decietfully suggesting that a person who won't bake a gay cake is somehow refusing to serve everyone. Or you just don't know what you're talking about. People like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman have made clear they'll serve anyone, but there are services they won't perform. These are two different things.
-
People like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman have made clear they'll serve anyone, but there are services they won't perform. These are two different things.
That is key.
At least in the CO incident, IIRC, the baker would have baked whatever cake they wanted. He just wouldn't decorate it, but suggested they could put their own decorations on afterwards. Otherwise (to invoke Godwin), what's to keep a Jewish (or any) baker from being forced to decorate a cake with a swastika? I'm pretty sure there are tons of bakeries that would refuse to decorate a cake with a penis for a bachelorette party, but would be happy to bake the cake on which the party girls put the penises they ordered from Amazon.
-
Personally, I think any person or business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason they choose. Just be open and up front about it (maybe require a sign).
But no one seems to like that idea. I think forcing everyone to be open and up front about their beliefs and prejudices would be better overall.
Many will not put their beliefs in writing for everyone to see.
If laws were changed to allow open to the public business to pick and choose services they provided to whom, then fine. Right now it isn't that way.
-
That is key.
At least in the CO incident, IIRC, the baker would have baked whatever cake they wanted. He just wouldn't decorate it, but suggested they could put their own decorations on afterwards. Otherwise (to invoke Godwin), what's to keep a Jewish (or any) baker from being forced to decorate a cake with a swastika? I'm pretty sure there are tons of bakeries that would refuse to decorate a cake with a penis for a bachelorette party, but would be happy to bake the cake on which the party girls put the penises they ordered from Amazon.
If the Jewish bakery was open to the public and offered custom cake decorating to customers, I would have to side with the NAZI and I'm a Jew.
-
If the Jewish bakery was open to the public and offered custom cake decorating to customers, I would have to side with the NAZI and I'm a Jew.
I thought you were Catholic?
Then what about genitalia? What about a black guy in a noose? I'm not sure I know a single bakery that would decorate your cake with ANYTHING. I know there are those porn bakeries, but they advertise what they do right out front. To force that on someone else is not exercising your rights, it's taking away theirs.
-
That sounds a lot like you're imposing your beliefs on other people. Because you are.
Not really, neither side wins 100% or even 50% most of the time. Sides that want it all are going to be on the losing side of history, when is the last time you seen a segregated public school? I think St. Louis area was one of the last hold outs, iirc. Or a whites only fountain?
One of the big problems with the same-sex marriage movement was (and is) that you're demanding the law be changed, in order to comply with the law. Or demanding that traditions change, in order to comply with tradition. In other words, you insist that "we do things a certain way" (serve everyone, no matter what they're asking you to do), while attacking other people who say "we do things a certain way" (only recognize marriage that includes both sexes).
You're also decietfully suggesting that a person who won't bake a gay cake is somehow refusing to serve everyone. Or you just don't know what you're talking about. People like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman have made clear they'll serve anyone, but there are services they won't perform. These are two different things.
Did the bakers custom decorate any cakes for anyone in the past?
How would you feel if you mortgage was sold to bank primarily owned by Muslims and they started adding high dollar fees to payments of non Muslim note holders, or started jacking your due date around each month so you fall behind in payments. Where does it stop when personal beliefs are allowed to dictate what services are provided to people by who they are.
-
I thought you were Catholic?
Then what about genitalia? What about a black guy in a noose? I'm not sure I know a single bakery that would decorate your cake with ANYTHING. I know there are those porn bakeries, but they advertise what they do right out front. To force that on someone else is not exercising your rights, it's taking away theirs.
Raised Catholic, Jewish Ancestry (non practicing)
If they open to the public and advertise custom cake designs, they should put whatever the customer requests if it's legal.
-
Raised Catholic, Jewish Ancestry (non practicing)
If they open to the public and advertise custom cake designs, they should put whatever the customer requests if it's legal.
Dude, I'm sorry, but you're totally reaching if you think a black baker should decorate a cake with a black guy hanging from a noose. He has every right to tell you to get bent.
-
Dude, I'm sorry, but you're totally reaching if you think a black baker should decorate a cake with a black guy hanging from a noose. He has every right to tell you to get bent.
I don't agree with it either, anymore than KKK having parades on main street, but I believe if are open to the public, you have to serve the public if it's legal. Perhaps there is a local or state law prohibiting images of hate crimes, then the baker would be in the right to refuse service to person requesting that image.
If a person walked into a open to the public gay owned bakery and asked for a cake decorated with "Fags must die", I would have to side with the customer.
A gas station doesn't have to serve someone trying to buy gas with a glass jar, because that is illegal. A bar doesn't have to serve a drunk person because it is illegal to serve a drunk person where I live. A gun dealer doesn't have to sell to a felon, because that is also illegal to sell a firearm to a felon.
-
Also, I don't think that churches are open to the public, to be a member one normally has to fit a certain criteria of core beliefs (if not very specific beliefs) and I have to problem with established chartered churches refusing to provide marriages to anyone.
-
I don't agree with it either, anymore than KKK having parades on main street, but I believe if are open to the public, you have to serve the public if it's legal.
I see where you're debating from, but I would do about a 90deg turn on it. If that's you're argument, then there should be a KKK bakery next door to the black guy's bakery. He gets to tell you to get bent and then they will happily decorate the cake.
-
Personally, I think any person or business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason they choose. Just be open and up front about it (maybe require a sign).
But no one seems to like that idea. I think forcing everyone to be open and up front about their beliefs and prejudices would be better overall.
That's one of the reasons I've never tried to go into business for myself.
I pretty much just hate people in general so I'd just end up running off all my potential customers.
-
I pretty much just hate people in general
What about us? Don't you like us? Buddy? Pal? =D
-
I see where you're debating from, but I would do about a 90deg turn on it. If that's you're argument, then there should be a KKK bakery next door to the black guy's bakery. He gets to tell you to get bent and then they will happily decorate the cake.
I get ya.
I tow a pretty hard line on this belief of if your open for public, you serve the public, because if you fight against those who believe differently than you and your side loses that battle, life is going to suck for you. A weak toleration goes along ways in preserving your beliefs and livelihood.
-
I don't agree with it either, anymore than KKK having parades on main street, but I believe if are open to the public, you have to serve the public if it's legal. Perhaps there is a local or state law prohibiting images of hate crimes, then the baker would be in the right to refuse service to person requesting that image.
If a person walked into a open to the public gay owned bakery and asked for a cake decorated with "Fags must die", I would have to side with the customer.
A gas station doesn't have to serve someone trying to buy gas with a glass jar, because that is illegal. A bar doesn't have to serve a drunk person because it is illegal to serve a drunk person where I live. A gun dealer doesn't have to sell to a felon, because that is also illegal to sell a firearm to a felon.
And when the law didn't recognize same-sex marriages, you were perfectly alright with that, right? I mean, it was the law, right? So you must have been OK with it.
I remember when you used to complain about social conservatives imposing their will on people. It was just earlier in this thread, in fact. I guess you don't care how heavy-handed government is, so long as those icky conservatives get their comeuppance.
-
Not really, neither side wins 100% or even 50% most of the time. Sides that want it all are going to be on the losing side of history, when is the last time you seen a segregated public school? I think St. Louis area was one of the last hold outs, iirc. Or a whites only fountain?
Did the bakers custom decorate any cakes for anyone in the past?
How would you feel if you mortgage was sold to bank primarily owned by Muslims and they started adding high dollar fees to payments of non Muslim note holders, or started jacking your due date around each month so you fall behind in payments. Where does it stop when personal beliefs are allowed to dictate what services are provided to people by who they are.
I don't feel I need to explain why these are somewhat different situations (to put it mildly) than demanding that a baker decorate your cake with something offensive.
If it helps you, though, I wouldn't use force (as you are so ready to do) to make some small business do what I want them to do. If a Muslim wanted to open a bank that caters to other Muslims, and isn't so friendly to the non-Muslims - well, it's their bank. I don't know much about banking regulations, though. I suspect it would not be as simple as that. If they start taking over loans from unsuspecting infidels, yeah, that would be quite a bit different than just not wanting to serve pork sandwiches. Even then, the home-owner can get his loan refinanced, so I'm not as ready to start cracking down on the Muslims as you are.
Violating personal property rights and free association rights looked a whole lot different, when black people were having a hard time finding a decent place to eat, or a room to sleep in. Perhaps it was excusable then. Today, forcing business owners to serve anyone, in any fashion they want? No, there's no excuse for it. It can't be justified.
-
IIRC gay marriage wasn't a thing until gay couples were excluded hospital decisions/ next of kinship type stuff because they weren't lefally married. They fought back through the courts and are winning.
I hope you are never refused service at a establishment open to public for your beliefs.
Keep pushing the minority groups out and it's going to happen.
-
IIRC gay marriage wasn't a thing until gay couples were excluded hospital decisions/ next of kinship type stuff because they weren't lefally married. They fought back through the courts and are winning.
That was resolved by the creation of "civil unions," years ago. Initially, the LBQTXYZ activists said that was all they were concerned about, and that civil unions satisfied their issues. Then, not too many years later, they upped the ante and decided that civil unions weren't enough, they wanted to be "married." So now we're fighting over their efforts to redefine "marriage."
-
That was resolved by the creation of "civil unions," years ago. Initially, the LBQTXYZ activists said that was all they were concerned about, and that civil unions satisfied their issues. Then, not too many years later, they upped the ante and decided that civil unions weren't enough, they wanted to be "married." So now we're fighting over their efforts to redefine "marriage."
Iowa was near ground zero for that.
-
Iowa was near ground zero for that.
It doesn't matter where ground zero was, it's spreading like wildfire. The Worldwide Anglican Communion has been in an undeclared state of schism over the issue of same sex marriage (and ordination of gay clergy and bishops) for at least a decade. Now, as of last week, the Methodist Church is in a similar situation. Their governing body affirmed their church's teaching (based on Scripture) that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that Methodist churches and clergy are not to perform same sex marriages. This is certain to result in some people leaving that denomination, and it may lead to some parishes trying to divorce themselves from the governing body.
How many states now recognize same sex marriages? http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html
Note that the map represents the situation before the Supreme Court stuck its nose in and said that state laws preventing same sex marriages are unconstitutional.
-
It doesn't matter where ground zero was, it's spreading like wildfire. The Worldwide Anglican Communion has been in an undeclared state of schism over the issue of same sex marriage (and ordination of gay clergy and bishops) for at least a decade. Now, as of last week, the Methodist Church is in a similar situation. Their governing body affirmed their church's teaching (based on Scripture) that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that Methodist churches and clergy are not to perform same sex marriages. This is certain to result in some people leaving that denomination, and it may lead to some parishes trying to divorce themselves from the governing body.
How many states now recognize same sex marriages? http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html
Note that the map represents the situation before the Supreme Court stuck its nose in and said that state laws preventing same sex marriages are unconstitutional.
If they would pushed to get the name "Marriage License" struck from law and changed to "Civil Union License" in legal documents in every states, probably wouldn't turned out this way. Or change it where legally one has to go to a government office to get "Civil Unioned" as the initial step entering a union. If one has a the belief that marriage should occur in a church like setting, then that ceremony can follow afterwards at their place of choosing. I think Germany does it this way, Civil first, other ceremony optional afterwards.
-
I hope you are never refused service at a establishment open to public for your beliefs.
Keep pushing the minority groups out and it's going to happen.
You're claiming that I'm pushing minority groups out? Out of what? I'm not the one arguing that people who disagree with me are not allowed to have businesses, or hold certain government jobs.
We already have instances of conservatives being harassed, or being refused service at establishments for their beliefs, whether religious, or otherwise. I object to that on the same basis I'd object to a person being refused service for their skin color. That doesn't mean I'll go so far as to use the government to force those people to do what I want. I'm the individual liberties guy.
If "pushing the minority groups out" means keeping homosexual couples from getting married, then keep in mind the conservatives being hounded out of restaurants is something that started happening AFTER Obergefell.
-
You're claiming that I'm pushing minority groups out? Out of what? I'm not the one arguing that people who disagree with me are not allowed to have businesses, or hold certain government jobs.
We already have instances of conservatives being harassed, or being refused service at establishments for their beliefs, whether religious, or otherwise. I object to that on the same basis I'd object to a person being refused service for their skin color. That doesn't mean I'll go so far as to use the government to force those people to do what I want. I'm the individual liberties guy.
If "pushing the minority groups out" means keeping homosexual couples from getting married, then keep in mind the conservatives being hounded out of restaurants is something that started happening AFTER Obergefell.
Pushing minority groups out has been happening for decades, just going into/through a period where they are pushing back hard. If it keeps up many of the "majority" are going to find themselves on the losing side of history. I have same problems with conservatives being refused service at a place that is open to the public. If you are open to the public, you are obligated to serve all members of the public, unless it is illegal by law. Such as serving am intoxicated person more drinks, or tattooing a 12 year old.
Speaking of Obergefell, how is that no different than trying to make nationwide CCW reciprocity the law of the land?
-
Violating personal property rights and free association rights looked a whole lot different, when black people were having a hard time finding a decent place to eat, or a room to sleep in. Perhaps it was excusable then. Today, forcing business owners to serve anyone, in any fashion they want? No, there's no excuse for it. It can't be justified.
Would you clarify that? It sounds like you would be OK with, today, a hotel had a policy that refused to rent rooms to black people.
-
Would you clarify that? It sounds like you would be OK with, today, a hotel had a policy that refused to rent rooms to black people.
To some extent, you either force everyone to provide the same services to everyone else or let them do what they want. One school of thought is to let everyone do what they want so long as they put their restrictions right out in the open so everyone can see. Would you stay at a hotel that had a sign out front saying "no black people"? Many wouldn't.
I am not entirely sure it would be better. Most businesses wouldn't want to be restrictive, but there would be ugly examples out there. However, there are ugly examples out there with the current system with people put out of business because they were targeted by radical political groups and sued repeatedly.
-
I don't agree with it either, anymore than KKK having parades on main street, but I believe if are open to the public, you have to serve the public if it's legal. Perhaps there is a local or state law prohibiting images of hate crimes, then the baker would be in the right to refuse service to person requesting that image.
If a person walked into a open to the public gay owned bakery and asked for a cake decorated with "Fags must die", I would have to side with the customer.
A gas station doesn't have to serve someone trying to buy gas with a glass jar, because that is illegal. A bar doesn't have to serve a drunk person because it is illegal to serve a drunk person where I live. A gun dealer doesn't have to sell to a felon, because that is also illegal to sell a firearm to a felon.
Are lawyers required to take every case that comes into their office and can pay the fee?
(The answer is no, of course.)
Why are other specialty services required to do that, then?
-
Are lawyers required to take every case that comes into their office and can pay the fee?
(The answer is no, of course.)
Why are other specialty services required to do that, then?
Lawyers openly advertise what they specialize in and there are conflict of interest statues in most places. They and other professions can post openly, not taking any new clients because their schedule and resources are full.
Also if some goes into McDonald's and demands a rare t-bone steak, they can be refused that service they are requesting.
A Muslim check out person at Costco can't refuse to ring up a industrial sized box of bacon to a paying customer either.
-
Also if some goes into McDonald's and demands a rare t-bone steak, they can be refused that service they are requesting.
Since McDonald's doesn't offer T-bone steaks, this is not a valid point of discussion. Laws prohibiting discrimination do not require private businesses to offer services they don't provide.
A Muslim check out person at Costco can't refuse to ring up a industrial sized box of bacon to a paying customer either.
Are you certain that Muslims haven't negotiated a workplace rule that allows them to decline to ring up pork products? Costco presumably can't offer bacon for sale and then decline to sell it to a customer, but that doesn't mean Muslim checkout associates can't negotiate rules that allow them to not handle bacon.
-
Lawyers openly advertise what they specialize in and there are conflict of interest statues in most places. They and other professions can post openly, not taking any new clients because their schedule and resources are full.
Also if some goes into McDonald's and demands a rare t-bone steak, they can be refused that service they are requesting.
A Muslim check out person at Costco can't refuse to ring up a industrial sized box of bacon to a paying customer either.
So, if a potential client comes into a lawyer and wants that lawyer to represent him in the area that the lawyer practices in, he has to take that client and represent him if he does not have a full client list?
I know you're trying to avoid admitting lawyers have the freedom to decline a client for any reason, but they do. Why is that?
-
Also if some goes into McDonald's and demands a rare t-bone steak, they can be refused that service they are requesting.
In that case the baker doesn't have to decorate the gay cake. The baker didn't have gay cake decorations as part of his business - he would have had to acquire them to decorate the cake. If the baker has to buy products he doesn't carry as part of his business, then McDs has to add steak to their next meat order.
-
In that case the baker doesn't have to decorate the gay cake. The baker didn't have gay cake decorations as part of his business - he would have had to acquire them to decorate the cake. If the baker has to buy products he doesn't carry as part of his business, then McDs has to add steak to their next meat order.
Pretty sure asking for a hand written message on a cake a bakery couldn't claim they are out of handwriting. Perhaps asking for a same sex plastic topper they could. Same for a penis cake, we don't have that mold.
-
If a minority, woman or sexually disordered person wants access to your business or group you must submit.
The right to peaceably assemble is a dead letter. Both government and corporations increasingly are moving to grind you into the dust if you attempt to assemble alternative institutions or options to those sanctified by the state.
I wonder how long the Amish and other Christian separatist sects can holdout before they are made to submit.
Nice little furniture store you have there, be a shame if something were to happen to it ...
-
Universal egalitarianism is governmental tyranny.
You can have liberty or you can have egalitarianism but you cannot have both.
Egalitarianism works in small groups like the Amish because you can always up and leave. Enforcing it on a national or global scale leaves a liberty loving man no home.
Egalitarianism is not tolerant, it will consume all spaces until it reigns supreme.
It’s sort of like entropy. It destroys natural order and hierarchies, destroys true diversity, then everything starts to disintegrate and collapse into anarchy.
We used to call egalitarianism “communism”.
-
Pretty sure asking for a hand written message on a cake a bakery couldn't claim they are out of handwriting. Perhaps asking for a same sex plastic topper they could. Same for a penis cake, we don't have that mold.
My understanding was that the baker was supposed to provide a same-sex decoration. His whole point was that he would have been happy to bake the cake and let them put their own topper on it.
Also, if a baker is forced against his will and philosophy to write some disgusting and derogatory comment about a specific group of people on the cake, and then the SJWs (or tea party or whoever) picket his place and run him out of business for doing it, that's okay? Because the protestors won't be going after the person that ordered the cake, they'll be going after the baker for not refusing.
-
My understanding was that the baker was supposed to provide a same-sex decoration. His whole point was that he would have been happy to bake the cake and let them put their own topper on it.
Also, if a baker is forced against his will and philosophy to write some disgusting and derogatory comment about a specific group of people on the cake, and then the SJWs (or tea party or whoever) picket his place and run him out of business for doing it, that's okay? Because the protestors won't be going after the person that ordered the cake, they'll be going after the baker for not refusing.
Did the baker make a error in judgement by showing the SS couple a complete copy of the catalog where they ordered cake decorating supplies from? If I had a cake business, I would have a very specific book of images and description of exactly what services I offer to everyone. Also I wouldn't give a rats ass what a paying customer wanted, you pay, I'll bake it. Even a giant donkey for a Democrat victory party.
Real eaay, publucally display the contract with the name of the group or individual that ordered it. No different if a hotel rented out a meeting room for the KKK conference.
-
Real eaay, publucally display the contract with the name of the group or individual that ordered it. No different if a hotel rented out a meeting room for the KKK conference.
KKK = controlled opposition, convenient foil to tar southerners, conservatives and anyone not down with diversity.
They are allowed to exist for a reason.
-
KKK = controlled opposition, convenient foil to tar southerners, conservatives and anyone not down with diversity.
They are allowed to exist for a reason.
Renting out a meeting room for Pentecostal church to have a summit on the sins of homosexuality in a gay owned hotel.
-
Renting out a meeting room for Pentecostal church to have a summit on the sins of homosexuality in a gay owned hotel.
“Your money is no good here” works fine for me.
If towns or cities want to impose radical egalitarianism I’m OK with that, at least you can go someplace to escape.
-
Did the baker make a error in judgement by showing the SS couple a complete copy of the catalog where they ordered cake decorating supplies from? If I had a cake business, I would have a very specific book of images and description of exactly what services I offer to everyone. Also I wouldn't give a rats ass what a paying customer wanted, you pay, I'll bake it. Even a giant donkey for a Democrat victory party.
Real eaay, publucally display the contract with the name of the group or individual that ordered it. No different if a hotel rented out a meeting room for the KKK conference.
My understanding is they did not want a standard cake with standard topping. They wanted a custom cake and they wanted a specific message on the cake that he objected to. They were not trying to get a cake. They were trying to get him to say "no". In a sane world, their case would have been thrown out at all levels.
I think if one of these groups decided you were their target, you would have a different view.
-
This too. I take exactly zero people seriously who push "ZOMG we have to do something!" but refuse to say "nuclear".
Put me in as somebody who has been pushing for nuclear for decades.
That said, global climate change is actually easy to explain.
The Earth heats up at the equator from solar radiation, and giant convection cells form to distribute the heat towards the poles, which are net radiators. Add in coriolis effects from the earth's rotation, things like continental and you get our weather.
The earth IS getting warmer. However, higher temperatures equals more energy. Which means that those convection cells become larger, faster, and longer lasting.
In the north, you get hot high air cooling near the pole, as it does so the air drops, forcing the cold air currently there to move south. More energy means that this still cold air moves faster and further.
Net effect? Higher highs, lower lows, more and more violent storms.
Coastal cities are hit by a double whammy. Ice melting off of Antarctica and northern glaciers raises the sea level, costing them their buffer even as storm surges grow in intensity, drastically increasing flood risk.
-
Put me in as somebody who has been pushing for nuclear for decades.
That said, global climate change is actually easy to explain.
The Earth heats up at the equator from solar radiation, and giant convection cells form to distribute the heat towards the poles, which are net radiators. Add in coriolis effects from the earth's rotation, things like continental and you get our weather.
The earth IS getting warmer. However, higher temperatures equals more energy. Which means that those convection cells become larger, faster, and longer lasting.
In the north, you get hot high air cooling near the pole, as it does so the air drops, forcing the cold air currently there to move south. More energy means that this still cold air moves faster and further.
Net effect? Higher highs, lower lows, more and more violent storms.
Coastal cities are hit by a double whammy. Ice melting off of Antarctica and northern glaciers raises the sea level, costing them their buffer even as storm surges grow in intensity, drastically increasing flood risk.
But this effect is (or can be) cyclical, as well. I'm sure I have commented previously (although perhaps not in this thread) that the Vikings had a viable, agrarian society flourishing in/on Greenland for almost 500 years, from the 900s to the 1400s. They ultimately abandoned Greenland (now why would they have named it "Green"land, I wonder?) because it became too cold, and there was too much sea ice during the winters. A simplistic view (and I'm a simple sort of guy) might hold that unless and until it becomes too hot to farm on Greenland, we're only seeing a cylcical variation.
Even if we accept the mechanics of your explanation ... does that in any way support the true believers' contention that THIS time around it's all caused by mankind, and that we can reverse it if we stop driving cars and eating the meat of farting cows?
I'll also note that at one time parts of North America (and the United States) were covered by glaciers. The Finger Lakes in upstate New York are glacial in origin, as is Soames Sound in Maine, the only natural fjord in North America. Many years ago I drove along U.S. Route 202 from Holyoke, MA, to Maine. Going east along 202 in MA I noticed a number of small, round-ish hillocks. Subsequent research informed me that they are glacial drumlins -- the line of small hills is made up of glacial deposits, and represents the line along which the advance of the glaciers' advance stopped.
Should we be advocating for the return of glaciers to northern New York and New England?
-
Regarding earths climate we don’t know nearly as much as we pretend to know.
A lot of folks are confusing probabilities based on dubious methods with reality.
If it wasn’t observed, cannot be measured and cannot be tested for falsifiability is it actually science?
Climate scientists are more like economists, at least when it comes to predicting the future.
-
But this effect is (or can be) cyclical, as well. I'm sure I have commented previously (although perhaps not in this thread) that the Vikings had a viable, agrarian society flourishing in/on Greenland for almost 500 years, from the 900s to the 1400s. They ultimately abandoned Greenland (now why would they have named it "Green"land, I wonder?) because it became too cold, and there was too much sea ice during the winters. A simplistic view (and I'm a simple sort of guy) might hold that unless and until it becomes too hot to farm on Greenland, we're only seeing a cylcical variation.
First up, consider that while I said that the earth is getting warmer, I didn't mention any harmful effects from just that. I mentioned sea level rise and more severe weather primarily. That it was warmer in Greenland over 600 years ago doesn't matter when all the cities were built(or completely rebuilt) since then.
I've also recently read up a bit more on Greenland. First, it wasn't really an agrarian society from what I read, they were heavily dependent upon livestock and sea life for their food. They were living more like Inuit. Second, the theory for the warming has more to do with the gulf stream than the entire earth being warmer then.
The "it's only cyclical" has problems:
1. We more or less know the cycles, and this ain't one of them.
2. Modeling of our climate doesn't work unless we include forcings for human based emissions.
3. We know the chemistry of the earth now, and we know the concentrations, emissions, and chemical properties of CO2 and various other chemicals, and we see those effects happening in the atmosphere.
And a bar of "too hot to farm in Greenland"? Are you serious? That would indicate that everything south of Greenland would be a wasteland. How about something like "suitable for warmer weather crops than the Barley the Vikings grew"?
How about things like we're predicting that the Arctic Sea will be passable for at least part of the year very shortly?
Even if we accept the mechanics of your explanation ... does that in any way support the true believers' contention that THIS time around it's all caused by mankind, and that we can reverse it if we stop driving cars and eating the meat of farting cows?
You're picking ONE data point, and not a good one. The "true believers" have things on their side like satellite observation data, ice and rock cores, sediment observations, and more on their side.
Also, only the idiots are trying to get you to stop driving and eating meat. More realistically, you're looking at stuff like more non-fossil fuels. Coal power plants are a big one, as coal is pretty much pure carbon. So if we stop burning coal, in favor of nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal and all the others, we cut down our carbon dioxide emissions substantially. Of course, I call the greenies idiots for opposing nuclear power. Next up would be vehicles, but we're getting the batteries to the point that we might be able to create a battery powered passenger plane that is economical.
And it isn't cow farts driving bovine based global warming. It's their belches that actually contains more NG. For that, they're working on changing up the cow's gut fauna, with the bonus that done right, it actually reduces the feed requirements for them.
Should we be advocating for the return of glaciers to northern New York and New England?
No, more that we don't warm things up so much that we lose most of Florida.
If it wasn’t observed, cannot be measured and cannot be tested for falsifiability is it actually science?
What does that have to do with climatology? It can be observed, and is observed. We measure it all the damn time. And yes, we do test it.
-
What does that have to do with climatology? It can be observed, and is observed. We measure it all the damn time. And yes, we do test it.
The models are all junk.
They cannot accuraterly predict the past let alone the future.
If there was no hubris there would be acknowledgment that “we” really don’t know *expletive deleted*it.
Instead we get true believers who confuse their models with reality.
Pompous asses who are intellectual yet idiots (present company excluded).
By the way, the Arctic Sea was passable in the past, in the 1800’s, before worldwide industrialization.
Climate science is about as reliable as the social sciences.
-
The models are all junk.
They cannot accuraterly predict the past let alone the future.
If there was no hubris there would be acknowledgment that “we” really don’t know *expletive deleted*it.
Instead we get true believers who confuse their models with reality.
And then fudge "adjust" the data to fit the models ...
-
What I should have said is “government sponsored climate science based on consensus is about as reliable as the social sciences”.
Without a doubt there is plenty of real observation and actual science taking place by real scientists.
-
From what I have seen in the past, storms are not getting worse, more numerous, or more violent. That is the perception as any serious storm is sensationalized in the media and there is more population in the path of storms these days. That comes up every year with Hurricanes as well, but there has been no substantial increase in number or severity. Also, the cycles mentioned are known now, but I was thinking the knowledge of decades long cycles is pretty recent. Not to mention that when I was a kid they told us we were near the warm end of the ice age cycle that covers thousands of years. I think we were still approaching the warmest point of that. There may be more recent info on that.
My idea is just that we don't know enough by far to go blaming anything on CO2 or Global Warming in general. That is very premature. It is telling that the "solutions" put forth are not solutions at all, but just political power grabs.
As far as nuclear power, I am all for that. I think it would make a great base line power generation tech and is probably the only technology that could effectively replace many of the large coal plants. As far as wind and solar, I think those will always be on the fringe and just supplemental power without some major change in the tech. They are not cost effective and require too much real estate to get anywhere near the same power. They also don't generate consistent amounts of power (daily or hourly) requiring other forms of power generation (natural gas) to ramp up and down and make up the difference. Hydro power is great, but limited to certain areas. I don't know much about geothermal and how it stacks up to the others.
-
As far as wind and solar, I think those will always be on the fringe and just supplemental power without some major change in the tech. They are not cost effective and require too much real estate to get anywhere near the same power. They also don't generate consistent amounts of power (daily or hourly) requiring other forms of power generation (natural gas) to ramp up and down and make up the difference. Hydro power is great, but limited to certain areas. I don't know much about geothermal and how it stacks up to the others.
While I think those technologies still have potential, I've always looked at them as "on site" energy tech. Thinks like solar roofs since they don't take up extra real estate, small home power generation setups, etc. I would look at any of it for supplemental home power.
Grid solar is inefficient and probably will be for some time to come. They're even getting sick of how much land it uses in CA. A nuclear plant in this location would provide 1000 times the electricity using 1/10th the land:
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-san-bernardino-solar-renewable-energy-20190228-story.html
-
I've always wondered about the ecological effects on the ground shaded by the photocells or the mirrors.
-
Here in my corner of the U.S. of A, several companies are pushing hard to sell solar electric generation to homeowners. I know one building inspector who had a side job inspecting solar installations for other towns where the local building inspector either didn't have time to do it, or wasn't up to speed on what to inspect. But ...
There's a house on one of the main roads through town that has the entire side of the roof facing the road covered with solar panels. I drive that road frequently and I always seem to notice that one house, because of the solar panels. I drove by it this morning on the way to my dentist. Sunday night and Monday morning we received between 8 and 12 inches of snow, and it has been cold enough that it's not melting. Sure enough, when I drive by the house with the solar roof, there was maybe 5 percent of the panel array exposed, up near the peak of the roof. The rest of the panels were under several inches of snow. Since it won't get above freezing until Friday (maybe), my guess is that those solar panels won't be generating anything for at least a week.
-
Violating personal property rights and free association rights looked a whole lot different, when black people were having a hard time finding a decent place to eat, or a room to sleep in. Perhaps it was excusable then. Today, forcing business owners to serve anyone, in any fashion they want? No, there's no excuse for it. It can't be justified.
Would you clarify that? It sounds like you would be OK with, today, a hotel had a policy that refused to rent rooms to black people.
In short, morally no; legally yes.
In charby's example of the homosexual hotelier, and the religious convention against homosexuality, I stand for the right of the hotelier to refuse service. To again borrow from charby, "I tow [sic] a pretty hard line" on this. Ideally, of course, such intolerance would be an expensive proposition for any business, so few would be willing to do such a thing. Ideally. As it stands today, of course, socially-conservative people like me stand to lose from the kind of freedom I advocate. So it's not hard for me to say this is a principled stand; not simply arguing for my own self-interest.
We have a raft of evidence that racism (at least racism against non-whites) is expensive for any business or institution that's even suspected of it. It should be self-evident, then, that we don't need the government to go about curtailing the rights of white racists to own businesses or property. Anyone that's suspected of not serving, or even under-serving non-whites will pay a steep price, even if the government does nothing. When white racism was respectable enough to allow for a significant degree of discrimination (the kind that would keep a black family from finding decent food, lodging, or other goods or services), it was difficult to get government to counteract it. In fact, government often required discrimination. Now that nearly all Americans are opposed to white racism, government stands ready to crush what is no longer anything but an attenuated, localized threat. And like most gun control laws, it's more of a problem for the law-abiding than for the true bad actors.
I specify white racism for a reason, of course. Anti-white racism has achieved, in the most influential circles, the status of a positive good. Once again, it's people like me that stand to lose the most.
-
If you are open to the public, you are obligated to serve all members of the public, unless it is illegal by law.
The dogma lives loudly within you.
-
If you are open to the public, you are obligated to serve all members of the public, unless it is illegal by law. Such as serving am intoxicated person more drinks, or tattooing a 12 year old.
Unless the State is rude and dismissive of your sincere religious beliefs precluding you from providing that service.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
A very narrow decision to be sure. I suspect we'll see more litigation on this.
-
In short, morally no; legally yes.
I agree with you on the morally part, and my libertarian side begrudgingly agrees in principle that it's not the governments place to dictate with whom you do business. The begrudging part is because I think if the government hadn't stepped in initially the transition to accepting everybody would be glacial. Mostly I agree that today a company that openly refused service to somebody would be done for. I think there would be a few diehards and probably small localities where such a business could survive. But then again it's messy the way we do it now, as evidenced by this thread.
Thanks for the reply.