Attitudes may have to be forced in the beginning...

Probably a Marxist. They are the new Fat Controllers of the planet.

They have usurped the moral high ground.

If you disagree you're not incorrect but evil.

They just say 'racist' or 'bigot'.

Most people run.

a reply to: ketsuko

LOL

Marriage ceremonies, by their very nature, are a public display of devotion and love, not sex, that straight couples have been parading in public for generations. Now that gays can legally marry, there will be WEDDINGS! Asking them NOT PARADE their love,(because it icks you out), while straight couples can, is hypocritical.

a reply to: ketsuko

It is if you have no choice about when, where, and how you provide it once it gets around that you offer it.

You don't. But that's given up by choice once you've been approved a public business license.

It's kind of like when you choose to buy a home in a gated community that has a homeowners association. It's your home, your property but when you signed the papers of sale, you agreed to certain conditions like not flying flags or having lawn ornaments or a swimming pool.

a reply to: Kali74

I can back you up on that last statement because I live in a gated community run by people who only come up here a few weeks out of the entire year. A tiny group controls 25 people.

CJCrawley: You know they have an agenda when they scream racist or bigot.

I have been so surprised that it is the new liberal/progressive/Democrat
who feel they are justified in forcing their view of what is moral
on the rest of the populace,
when historically the old liberal
was for freedom of speech and thought.

When people of faith want to force their view of morality
on the rest of the populace
the new liberal/progressive/Democrat squeal like stuck pigs
call them horrid names and do their best to demonize the people of faith

But when it is the new-liberal/progressive/Democrat consensus of what is moral and right
everyone else must agree
or else - lose their business
or else- lose their jobs
or else .......

The new American liberal/progressive/democrat
see themselves as the only people in the world
with the correct outlook on life
with the correct moral values
and they see themselves as having a mission
to force the rest of the world
to think as they do
to speak as they do

Neo-liberalism/progressivism is a new form of religion
that is insidious
because it claims to be the only correct form of thought and behavior
with no real set value system upon which to base their moral proclamations.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

The Founders were Classical Liberals. But they believed in freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, private property rights, self-defense etc.

In short, they believed in a lot of things that modern progressives only believe in as it benefits them to believe in them. As soon as you take that belief in a direction that the modern progressives deem to be against their party line, those freedoms are no longer for you.

The modern liberal/progressive
philosophy is actually a form of communism

It is no where near classical liberalism, or even the liberalism of JFK, or MLK

Neo-liberalism/progressivism
use Saul Alinsky and extremist socialists
and even communists as their guiding
"bibles"

Old style liberals, classical liberals
used the constitution as their guiding "bible"

One can now see that the new liberal is not at all truly liberal because
they believe the constitution is an "evil" and "outdated" document
and that the works of the classical communist philosophy
are their guiding principals.

Which is why the current liberal
believes that the government must control all thought, word, and deed
of the people it controls
with a firm paternal hand
in order to achieve equality for everyone
(except those in power of course - i.e. see the Obama excesses)

a reply to: grandmakdw

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

That's a lot of bluster, there, to justify the attitudes of people who refuse to treat others, who are different, with dignity and respect. Too bad that laws had to be drafted to protect those who are different from those who would publicly shame and alienate them.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: grandmakdw

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

That's a lot of bluster, there, to justify the attitudes of people who refuse to treat others, who are different, with dignity and respect. Too bad that laws had to be drafted to protect those who are different from those who would publicly shame and alienate them.

Treating others with respect is at the very core of what I believe.

Liberals/progressives do not treat others with respect
those who think differently
are treated as practically criminal
if not in fact criminal

It seems you believe that drafting thought control laws are
something you believe is necessary
to make the populace
believe as you do.

Legislating treating others with respect is a good thing.

Legislating how one should think
is a step toward facism.

Where is the respect for the people who are quietly going about their business
being forced to do something against their will and beliefs?
Something they find to be a personal violation so deep they consider it a sin to engage in the forced activity?

I always wondered if the religious business person who feels this deeply
should include a religious symbol or saying on every
cake/flowers/etc
and not discriminate, but publicize it as something that is an integral
part of every product they make, that is included on every product they make.
Would the business be shut down by the neo-liberals/progressives as
a "hate" business, because the
new liberal/progressive
can not tolerate even the smallest expression of faith in any public arena

The ignorant should be taught, and sometimes they aren't willing to be taught, so incentive must be applied.

Like it or not, we live in a democratic republic where majority rules. The majority are okay with laws of conformation.

It's a tricky issue. I certainly don't think anyone should be forced to have their attitude changed. In fact, I think being threatened with force would likely make some people even more entrenched in their 'incorrect' attitudes.

I might decide to be a somethingaphobe just to annoy the ptb even if I had no particular axe to grind against a particular group of people, especially if I saw that they were getting preferential treatment to the extent that I had no choice but to be 'nice' to them.

It really makes one wonder if this isn't just more divisive tactics or if 'they' are truly just scoring an own goal.

As for businesses being able to choose who they serve - well, it's their business and if they decide someone's money isn't good enough for them it would be easy to say 'Fine then - go broke'

BUT - what if it's you they won't serve based on your skin colour or your sexual preference? You're in a small town and you're hungry. The only shop or restaurant turns you away, even though you've committed no offense, because the owner is a bigot and doesn't care if you starve.

It's a bit harder then to say 'Sod you, I hope your business collapses'.

It must be tempting to do everything you can to shame the person who treats you so callously even to the point of asking for legislation to sort them out.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I get it. You want the right to discriminate. You're outraged that gays are a new "protected" segment of society and you have to stifle your rancid hate, wrapped in the American Flag, in the secular business world, for the greater good of society. How Communist!

Yes, gay customers have to be treated equally in secular business situations, but cheer up, you can still bash them here, on ATS!

a reply to: TheArrow

Who's ignorant? Who decides who is ignorant? I think we have one gov operating two "parties" giving the illusion of choice and an effective voting system. I can't deny the majority are more than happy to conform, but that's one of the problems in society right there. Gov is the citizens passing the buck to an entity they feel can represent their interests, so they don't have to be bothered with freedom, laws and "what's best".

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: TheArrow

Who's ignorant? Who decides who is ignorant?

Certainly not the ignorant. They usually aren't even aware of how ignorant they truly are.

a reply to: TheArrow

So who do you consider to be ignorant?

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: Metallicus

That has honestly got to be one of the most disturbing statements I have read here. Absolutely dumbfounding. No one, anywhere, ever has the right to force anything on anyone.

Well, I guess you never heard of the Civil Rights law in the US?

originally posted by: TheArrow
The ignorant should be taught, and sometimes they aren't willing to be taught, so incentive must be applied.

Like it or not, we live in a democratic republic where majority rules. The majority are okay with laws of conformation.

Even though I agree with antidiscrimination laws your statement on majority rule and democratic republic are all twisted.


This is a constitutional republic with a democratically elected congress.

If majority was rule for rule none of the antidiscrimination laws would have ever taken hold.

The system is set up so that the minority are protected from the majority. Equality is what we strive for.

a reply to: Aliensun

In the past I've read people who argued that it was unconstitutional for various reasons.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Even though I agree with antidiscrimination laws your statement on majority rule and democratic republic are all twisted.


This is a constitutional republic with a democratically elected congress.

If majority was rule for rule none of the antidiscrimination laws would have ever taken hold.

The system is set up so that the minority are protected from the majority. Equality is what we strive for.

The Majority are the protectors of the Constitution, and when the Majority decides the Constitution needs to be changed, we change it. The Majority protects the Minorities from those that would see them harm.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: TheArrow

So who do you consider to be ignorant?

From Google:

ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
adjective: ignorant

lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

a reply to: TheArrow

Well then, billions upon billions.