Trump As Speed Bump (And Debate Notes)

I know I said I would vote for Johnson the last time I commented on this around here, but since then I’ve been re-evaluating a lot. In the intervening time I’ve also been playing catch-up on NRx reading and podcasts (still so so far behind), and I found a lot there that I liked. Pro-civilization without being knee-jerk or short sighted like a lot of alt-right stuff I had seen that had turned me off of Trump.

I don’t feel any differently about Trump. I do agree with your opening paragraphs, though. Trump might be a speed bump, and he might be an empowerment and motivator for people on the right side of the culture war to get moving more.

Also, I do not get why we’d want to go to war with Russia. The middle east is such a quagmire, so if Putin wants to go in mess with it, fine. If Trump keeps us out of that mess and gives us a 50/50 shot at supreme court justices that can hold the line, that’ll be worth a vote.

And hey, maybe I’m some weird outlier where watching debates actually does change my mind, if only by making myself even more scared of Hillary.

Tremendous debate. Truly astonishing, as in amazing. Like, absolutely. No details, coz you never give out your secrets to the enemies like those wimpy democrats. Killers, they’re killers I tell ya, the chinese. Those guys are killin’ it and we are all so very bad. Don’ gimme numbers, I know this from my gut coz my gut is amazing. Best gut in whole damn world, I eat everything like a bitch ya know? But where was I? Oh right, grabbing people. Forget it, it’s all just words. Words. They don’t matter, I’m just smart, believe me. Look at my eyes and believe me, coz I’m just incredible you won’t believe how quick I make America Great Again. Oh yeah, the Wall. The Wall, folks. Yeah, 10 feet. Nah, make it 11. Why not? Not me who’s payin’ it. No way folks. I never pay anything, coz I’m smart. Perhaps they did a bad job why would I pay them? What? What you say? That I was sued by them and lost? Well, tough luck to the lawyers, they were terrible, terrible I tell ya, at their jobs that’s why they lost. Me? I never lose. So I didn’t pay the lawyers as well. Why should I? They failed, and it was such an easy thing to do, believe me, such an easy thing. And that’s the kind of leadership we need in this country. Coz our country is so rotten to the core people. So so rotten. Unemployment, crazy. Just wild. Yeah, don’t believe in those guy’s numbers, fuzzy sleazy numbers. Believe in Barron. Breitbart, amazing people. Specially infowars. Those guys know. They all do. We all do. We know who did all this stuff. (((They))), amirite folks? Yeah. And Clinton, don’t tell me about it. She is way worse than me. I didn’ do anything really, tremendous respect ya know? Tremendous respect for any woman, every one, but ya know, if I did, if I did all that, she would still be way worse than me coz her husband is as slea…, way sleazier than me. Believe me, you wouldn’t believe the crazy [crap] he would tell me when we would be playin golf. Yeah, coz an anti-establishmen’ guy like me golfs with these people all the time. It’s mah job!

This absolute horsecrap is all on you. You, the moral high horse dwellers, you the personal responsibility dwellers, you the christian defenders. You are supporting this basket case of deplorableness. What does that make you?

Edited

“It’s more like 0.5 against 5.5, because nobody expects Trump will consistently uphold Tradition and Reality.”

There is one rather important factor you failed to mention: the people. The average citizen has no great love of the liberal system, and one charismatic leader just might help trigger the outbreak of real resistance to the Left.

Then again, a Trump presidency could easily be another disaster. Ya never know. But some good coming out it is a definite possibility. We should prefer the chance of good over the certainty of bad, so vote for the Donald.

Grading the debate based on personal scorecards is kind of pointless — the performances are marketing for eliciting votes. The only tally that really matters is how the performances translate in the marketplace:

First debate – Clinton gained some undecideds, Trump may have lost some (per focus groups).

2nd debate – Per focus groups Trump won big on the undecideds, Clinton not much — but was that enough to give Trump the edge? Focus group feedback suggests that something like 30% of the undecideds even heard the actual “locker room” discussion — so that sample suggests this issue’s adverse impact is overblown (and, many [most?] seem to think that’s in character, so hearing stuff like that isn’t much of a revelation … and wasn’t it Kissinger [former Sec. State] that said, “Power is the great aphrodisiac” — what Trump was describing was/is basically the same … historically commonplace banter … and the behavior, if it occurred, has & remains just as common…what the press is trying to insinuate that such behavior, if it occured/s is non-consensual–and often [most often?] the opposite is true, the behaviors ARE consensual. That this is the case has been a major bit of commentary on talk radio of late, suggesting the biased press viewpoint is not shared by a substantial portion of the public).

Some Brit was interviewed after the debate and he noted comparisons with the Brexit polls vs post-vote results, which conflicted with the earlier polls. Seems like something similar may be occurring (anecdotal data suggests there’s a lot of closet Trump supporters out there who won’t/don’t admit this for a variety of reasons). So, who’s even winning might not be as clear as it appears…

If one thinks that the reported exodus of Republican supporters [formerly for Trump] is a significant issue, I’m doubtful — that just shows how self-serving they can be relative to supporting their team (and Republicans are MUCH more fickle on such things than Democrats, who stick together much much more by comparison). Here’s an example of just how idiotic those politicians can be in this regard: http://loweringthebar.net/2016/10/congress-blames-veto.html

A good piece, Briggs.
The debate was deplorable and shows to what state politics (and the country?) have fallen.
My son (who heretofore has been apolitical) watched the debate in a hotel room (on an interview trip) and said “My God, how did this guy come to be a presidential candidate?” That’s how horrified someone would be who time travelled from 1990, say.
Briggs, I hope you’re not right on your forecast of doom and gloom, but there all sorts of indicators that tell us we’re Rome, about 440 AD. The barbarians are at the gates.
Given that, and the strong polling lead HRC has in my battleground state (49% HRC, 37% Trump), I’m going to vote my conscience. Johnson is a fool and not a conservative (I wonder if all those years on Pot has shrunk his neurons). I’m voting for Evan McMullin, who is conservative and pro-life.
See
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/
There’s a chance, a small chance admittedly that he could take Utah and thus have the election put into the House of Representatives.
Pray for our country.

What about Hillary’s vow to arm the Kurds? Will she use the same guns she will take from Americans using her “common sense gun control”?

I do not understand the “vote my conscience” crowd that conflates the perceived character of a candidate with the likely performance if the candidate gets to the office.

The implicit presumption is that voting for a person equates to endorsing their character — another sort of correlation/causation linkage that is at best tenuous, and more often than not nonexistent.

It’s the old bit about Roosevelt, Churchill & Hitler:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates.

Candidate A – Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He’s had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B – He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C – He is a decorated war hero. He’s a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

We’re about to vote for a candidate who will deliver the best results for the U.S.A. — their behavior & actions relative to the “job description” are what matters, not their traits relative other factors that might seem morally significant relative to one’s values, but which will have no effect on their performance in the elected office.

If by asserting “voting one’s conscience” one contributes to the election of a substandard person to office than would have been elected if one voted for the other candidate — are they really “voting their conscience” … or … voting to willfully maximize the damage under the banner of some noble sentiment?

Could be both at the same time, for two different people (one with the motive to contribute to the undermining of a country, and one with a “holier-than-thou” temperament, for example).

Because one cannot know the difference (in general) regarding someone’s actual motives (e.g. noble conscience asserted to conceal actual willful malice intended to contributed to enabling a worse outcome) that’s a clue that the “conscience” rationale may be seriously defective rationalization/self-delusion. The “fruits of the act of voting one’s conscience” are, it might seem, part of the same “fruits” some guy said, some 2000 years ago, one would be judged against.

If there’s a philosopher nearby, familiar with that ‘undeceased’ guy’s teachings, perhaps they could weigh in on this apparent issue….

Bob Kurland’s son: “…how did this guy come to be a presidential candidate?”

Answer: Because he’s the only Republican candidate showing the spirit actually to attack some of the sacred cows of liberalism. He has said some (only some, mind you) of what needs to be said but which the other Republican candidates wouldn’t be caught dead saying.

Luis Dias —

“You, the moral high horse dwellers, you the personal responsibility dwellers, you the christian defenders.”

And what moral horse are you riding (’cause your statement is based on your (so-called) morals)?

Your selective use of capitals is telling. Do you truly believe that the Left is incapable of spreading vile?

Ken —

“It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.”

That’s hyperbole. My vote in an election (just as yours) has never decided anything.

Just got finished watching the debate. I recorded last night. The moderators did tend to favor Clinton but not as much as some reports would have one believe. The low point was a moderator entering into the debate against Trump; apparently speaking for Clinton.

Clinton’s behavior when Secretary of State was marked by poor performance Not to mention criminal in secret and confidential message handling. From the last Wikileaks release, she clearly new the vulnerability of even the government Blackberries yet persisted in leaving secrets exposed to hacking. Anyone else would have been prosecuted for even inadvertently doing so. Clinton did it intentionally.

Clinton is definitely off the vote-for list.

The real question is whether the vote should go to Trump or someone else. Frankly, though, there are no good options. Gary knocked himself out when he tongued that woman in the park. Whatever was he thinking? And Jane is a Weather Underground wannabe.

I thought the Bush/Gore race was scraping the bottom of the barrel. This one seems the barrel has been turned over and the selection is among the dwellers form beneath.

Trump did handle himself well last night (although he has that Cocaine User Sniff). I’m glad Hillary lost that stupid head bobbing thing but keeping in character with the not-a-real-person look replaced it with the Creepy Clown grin.

http://tinyurl.com/gnywkal
http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/Hillary-Clinton-eyes.jpg

—

South Park had one hilarious episode where [Trump]** during a debate said [Clinton] was more qualified to be president after which [Clinton] made the pre-programmed response: “My opponent is both a liar and a cheat and you can’t trust anything he says.”

**Names have been changed to protect the guilty.

In case anyone cares Jane = Jill in the above. Spell check can be Capricious.

I do wonder, as does Dr B., if it is better for the country to just have everything blow up sooner than later.

What are some practical (read ‘not wingnut’) suggestions to help one prepare for the inevitable? Besides prayer, of course.

RE: “If Trump wins, his effect on the accelerating downward slide of our culture will be as a speed bump, perhaps a small series of speed bumps.”

Might as well just give the trend a nudge & help get it over with faster, eh — vote Clinton…and/or vote your “conscience” and throwaway your vote entirely (or just stay home)…there’s really no difference in that.

Clinton is leading in the polls by about 4-5 percent.

Almost ten percent of the voters say they’ll throw away their vote for a sub-tier candidate.

As Jim F. points out, nobody’s vote really matters … but if an entire demographic, say of “conscience voters” that could be persuaded as a demographic to support Trump (those that never would under any circumstance vote for Clinton)…why…that really could tip the outcome from a “really bad” candidate winning (Clinton) to only a “bad” candidate winning. Which would be good/better/preferable — by not voting one’s conscience and instead voting for results.

Of course, if Briggs is right and the long-term outcome is dismal…might as well give that trend a shove & help get it over with faster…

Almost ten percent of the voters say they’ll throw away their vote for a sub-tier candidate.

Is it a throwaway or a message? What you are suggesting is that the vote should go to whoever is likely to win given the polls. So, I should vote for Clinton because I live in a state dominated by Democrats? Furthermore, we are forever stuck with only two choices Republican vs. Democrat?

writing from overseas I wonder if you can tell me why you have Presidential debates?
A President doesn’t debate. Perhaps an ambassador or diplomat does but a President is above that. So maybe debating skills are not a prerequisite for the job.
Neither of the candidates have experience in being President so you can’t compare their past performance in that position.
So what is all the hoopla about? It isn’t show business . Can’t they just appear separately and put forward their intentions if elected and then the people can decide maturely ( or otherwise) and elect the better candidate for the job.
When did all this start?

The Neo-fascism here, for all to see, is incredible and telling (…and I’m not even sure it’s very Neo).
Heil all!

I am sure there are over 300 million US citizens… was this the best you guys could come up with? Were I inclined to depression I would be quite sad.

Regarding Brexit… I spoke to my brothers just before the vote, and they, as near-London dwellers, said the stay camp would win for sure. I cautioned that it didn’t seem so clear as an outsider (from Oz). In my opinion at the time the Brexit vote was too hard to call. I see the US Prez election as similar. I am sure the Trump contingent is under-reported. I said it would come down to Trump and Clinton many months ago, and at the time I thought Americans would baulk at the last hurdle and give it to Clinton as the “devil they know.” Now I am less sure.

PS> Can you get HuffPo out of our newspapers? It’s quite annoying. The Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age (both Fairfax Press) run endless anti-Trump stories (several each day) as if we Australians give a rats proverbial.

Meanwhile in the real world, it looks like republican might look congress. The senate for sure, the house is TBD but in play even when district were rigged to favor republican to the point they elected 30 something more representatives than democrat with 1.7million less votes. In 2012

What’s with this creepy narrative you cons have been plotting suggesting Hillary Clinton wants to go to war with Russia? Better question, is there such a thing as a sane conservative anymore?

JMJ

Shecky,

This blog is the basket of deplorable mentioned by Clinton

Sylvain Yes I am a deplorable, work my behind off my entire life looking to retire with what a saved and did not pee away only to have Clinton plotting on how to take it away from me after all, I presently an in the top 10% of household wealth in America yet as Carvel put it I am trailer house trash. I still look for how to cash in on my white privilege since I have native American cousins who had their way through college full boat. I had to settle for trade school even after that I could not work for Bell Telephone in the field I was trained for unless I was will to be an operator for the few years thousands of miles away from where I grew up not true for my native American community members they got hired right away as installers. Now I now look at my son who works in law enforcement and what does he have put up with, the Left in calling him a pig (yea back to the 1960s) and drawing a target on his back becasue of a lie perpetuated by BLM, Hillary and her party. Thank you demorats, thank you Hillary, I hope someone will pee on your graves since I am to old to do it.

“In case anyone cares Jane = Jill in the above. Spell check can be Capricious.”

You ain’t a-kiddin’, DAV. But how about auto-complete on a smart phone? When I use the name “Nancy” in a text, the phone invariably fills in “Pelosi”. What??? I’ve never, ever even once even considered writing a text about that evil wretch. Who programs these things?

My father used to say that there’s something wrong in the head with someone who actually wanted to be president. But yet we continue to expect some sort of superficial perfection from them.

To me the sad part is that since there is more and more power concentrated in a large unaccountable federal government, the office of president has assumed more and more importance in our lives. The establishment ruling class will never give up this power willingly, and they are deathly afraid of what Trump represents. A Trump win will be immensely pleasing to us who have come to despise the establishment, but will he be able, or even willing, to take action to reverse the trend? Clearly our Constitution lacks sufficient checks and balances on the federal government, and our only long-term hope is a magical amendment to correct the flaw.

Jim Fedako

“And what moral horse are you riding (’cause your statement is based on your (so-called) morals)?

Your selective use of capitals is telling. Do you truly believe that the Left is incapable of spreading vile?”

No. I do not. I know they are. But I don’t define myself as being this pure moral christian cruzader (hey, like Pence does all the time) and then turns around and defends this boorish awful person. I am not a pious person who constantly whines about the immorality of the Clintons and then goes ahead and shouts “Trump! Trump! Trump!”.

I hate Hillary Clinton. I was incredibly happy when Obama defeated her back in ’08. My opinion is, she is still a thousand times better than Trump for the job, although my hope is that in four years she gets defeated. And even all the while I *do* prefer the Left to the Right, I *do* hope she gets defeated in 2020 by an actual good republican nominee.

Not Trump.

I do understand and sympathize with the vote for Trump if the voter has these two reasons: (1) He’s not Hillary and (2) you’re worried about the Supreme Court. That’s it. You grab your nose hard to prevent any toxin to enter your body and write in his four letter word of a name. And then work to get him impeached or something after he nominates the supreme court judge.

But Trump supporters who are actually enthusiastic about this horrible piece of human flesh?

You got all of my loathing. All of it and then some.

Luis —

“But I don’t define myself as being this pure moral christian cruzader (hey, like Pence does all the time) and then turns around and defends this boorish awful person.”

You are amoral crusader who will vote for a boorish, awful person. So get off your high horse.

By the way, I thought the Left claims it’s all about acceptance and love, yet your loathing and hate reveal its true hypocrisy.

A moral … not amoral

Jim,

“By the way, I thought the Left claims it’s all about acceptance and love, yet your loathing and hate reveal its true hypocrisy.”

The left is about tolerance and do accept the difference. You can think whatever you want about muslim, women, gay, etc. The problem arise with action that have been taken in the past to affect people who were different. Here are a few example: Segregation laws, Sodomy laws, discriminatory law, forcing women to have babies they don’t want and claiming that they should not be punished (as if an unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment and a sentence to death for 18 women for each 100000 pregnant women).

Mark Luhman.

“I presently an in the top 10% of household wealth in America ”

Seems that you did very well for yourself.

Than why do you vote for the guy who wants to rise your taxes. If you make less than 250k, Trump’s plan will rise your taxes while Clinton will leave it at the same level.

Trumps want to abolish the estate tax because he knows that is wealth is a house of card and that his children will ruined by his practices.

Also try to explain why even though Canadians pay more taxes at the median income income level than the American and still end up with more money. The thing is that once the Canadian paid is taxes he doesn’t need to get health care insurance, he pays a lot less in electricity, the university for his children cost him 5000$ / year etc. Housing to few exception is also much cheaper.

Sylvan —

Just wondering … how much force (i.e. intolerance) can be applied to guarantee tolerance?

Inheritance/estate taxes — Why should these funds be taxed twice?

Every dollar one inherits was earned by someone else — someone who paid taxes on that money. What they pass on is what’s left after taxes. An inheritance tax is just a means by which the government double-dips from the same pile of money. Anyone realizing that and still endorsing inheritance/estate taxes is rationalizing jealousy and their desire to knock others more fortunate down another financial notch or two.

Shocking the Canadian system is held up (Sylvain) as an example of free “health care insurance”, which is government provided health care that very often is not available … prompting an industry unheard of elsewhere — the Medical Broker (e.g. http://www.timelymedical.ca/ ); read the FAQs there and see if the extra taxes one pays there actually delivers.

Also read the infamous case, Chaoulli v Quebec, where the unavailability of adequate health care was measured in deaths (literally) and Quebec was forced by Canadian Supreme Court decision to allow its residents to get, and use, medical insurance (not available elsewhere in Canada…unless one is a human’s pet, then you can get an MRI while you wait). That case is shockingly interesting to most U.S. citizens because the argument was put forward during the trial [in writing and in all seriousness] that allowing citizens to get their own insurance would thereby undermine the government system. Preserving the government system actually was argued as the superior moral priority over saving individual lives by granting greater right to the citizens! That’s Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton values…except if they get the chance they’ll get it better than Canada, or so they like to believe against all evidence to the contrary.

Really check out Canada’s system, consider the wait times & misery you might experience if you’re older (retired) and needing a hip replacement. And how you can’t hire a doctor when you want but must wait for the government to let your number come up on some wait list. Then compare that to what you can expect if you were some human Canadian’s pet dog — where they could then get you an MRI, etc., while they waited with insurance the “Single Payer” system denies to the humans. Holding up a human medical system, that’s inferior in many fundamental respects to a veterinary system, as a good example is rather odd.

Here’s Clinton’s description (her website info) for closing tax loopholes — lots of emotional appeal to jealousy of the wealthy and “fairness” … but not discussed is the economic fact that if all the money from all the wealthy were confiscated & distributed, there’s still no way around from still taxing the middle class. There just isn’t enough rich to close such gaps…meaning that when they say they’ll get the taxes to finance this or that or whatever from the “rich” it cannot happen without taxing everybody. They know this as can anyone doing a bit of serious research; but they present their solution as if it is to be entirely off the backs of the rich and the middle class will be a beneficiary when they know the middle class will provide most via more confiscatory taxes. Peruse Clinton’s words, ignore the emotion, and note how this obfuscates more than explains:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/01/12/investing-in-america-by-restoring-basic-fairness-to-our-tax-code/

She knows the middle class MUST pay for all the “free” giveaways she wants to handout.

@Sylvain:

“This blog is the basket of deplorable mentioned by Clinton”

And since you regularly comment on it, it follows logically that you are like a deplorable.

Jim,

What did it take to eliminate German Nazis?

Sylvain —

Snarky reply. Wow! I never knew you had it in you.

However, a reply that proves Godwin’s law is true can be tricky. Are you saying that any lack of tolerance must be met with a Dresden-type response? ‘Cause that is really how the Left appears — ready to scorch earth in its war of intolerance against intolerance.

Ken – I’m with you. I do not believe that the “vote your conscience” people are thinking it through. I think their disgust with Trump’s vulgarity (in both meanings of the word – commoner, and crude) is blinding them to the real choices. And, for those who don’t think about it much (and I am not referring to anyone here), because they imagine that a vote for a person is an endorsement of his character.

As for those who say it will send a message, my thought is: so what? Voting for Ross Perot sent a message and brought us Bill Clinton, which led to the mess we have today. If 10% of the voters cast their votes for non-major party candidates, the message will be… nothing useful.

Gary Johnson is not a good candidate if you care about freedom. As Gary why he claims that religious liberty is an excuse to do horrible things. Libertarians aren’t really about liberty for the most part, they are about hedonism. And, their policies demonstrate, every time, that Libertarianism is a suicide cult. They don’t have a clue about national defense, and many of them are for open borders which will admit people who most certainly are not interested in limited government.

Evan whoever is irrelevant.

The real message is Trump. His existence, and the votes for him, say one thing loudly and clearly: we have had enough with rule by elites, PC, and globalism! And *that* is the message we need to send.

… as for the debate… Trump won it by a large margin. Not on debater points or facts or policy, but on temperament, which is very important in this race. Hillary came across as the cold phony that she is, and she came across as weak.

…as for why people adore Trump (and I am not one of the adorers)… Trump is a symbol of revolution. A lot of people are revolted, so they are revolting against the “establishment.” This time, it’s not the coddled hippies and anti-war cowards of Vietnam era, but blue collar people, and conservatives, and Christians who have had it with the way things are going.

When you see evangelicals supporting Trump, you have to recognize that this is a major symptom of a big phenomenon. Trump is not leading an evangelical life, and yet they are for him in big numbers. I am not exactly sure why, but I am certain that it is an important signal.

Jim,

The problem is not what people think or believe but what action they are ready to do.

À Trump’s supporters today at a Pence rally said that she was ready for revolution (armed opposed to Sanders political) if Trump doesn’t win. Pence timidly turned her down while many at the rally were cheering.

In 2000-2001 Gore accepted the Supreme Court decision and conceded defeat even if he had received more vote than Bush. It doesn’t that Trump and his supporters are willing to accept the results of the election even Trump’s win is à now a long shot.

Btw, my reply wasn’t meant to be snarky. Tolererance does not mean accepting that categories of people are injured by others.

No one here like when I act like a bully, but it is okay when they are the who bully others.

Republican are the one passing laws restricting the vote or making harder to vote. They are the one rigging the system and they are the one complaining that it is, or not rigged enough that they still can’t win.

No one here like when I act like a bully
Nice to see you admit to being a hypocrite.

I don’t like Trump but your convincing arguments for him got me thinking. Thanks.

Sylvain —

Simply answer my question,.

John —

“Libertarians aren’t really about liberty for the most part, they are about hedonism.”

It’s better to stay quite than to loudly announce your ignorance.

You have a cartoonish understanding of things.

Actually, Jim, I was a registered Libertarian and a party member before I realized how messed up they were, 40 years ago. As such, I’ve watched the Libertarian party for a long time. I read “Reason” frequently.

I know of what I speak. Libertarians, in my experience, are strongly against religious freedom and in favor of using gay marriage, etc, as a way to punish people for their beliefs. That isn’t in accord with the ideals of libertarianism, but it is what I see in practice. Gary Johnson spoke about how religious liberty was a “black hole” – so here is a “Libertarian” calling a natural and constitutional human liberty a “black hole.”

Libertarians have no interest in the liberty of unborn human beings, in general (I knew *one* libertarian with an opposite view). Their libertinism and their sell-out to the sexual revolution again puts them against liberty and for, in this case, murder. Whose liberty can be more valuable than that of an innocent who has no defense?

Libertarians are, it is true, in favor of some things outside of hedonism. Open borders is one – a truly idiotic stance in light of the obvious anti-liberty consequences that would bring to the US. Likewise, they are reflexively against effective national defense, which also is anti-liberty if one considers the consequences.

But, as I said, for “the most part” libertarians are not really defenders of liberty.

Jim,

I predicted a second civil war in the US. This war is getting closer with Trump and his supporters claiming a rigged election and the possibility of an armed revolution.

Trump and his supporters do not believe in the constitution or democracy. The right are the one threatening to jail the political opponents for no reason and tu use violence.

Sylvain —

Simply answer my question.

John —

Are really conflating the Libertarian party with libertarianism (i.e. Classical Liberalism)? I truly hope you do not believe Johnson is a Classical Liberal just because the party you supported nominated him.

Next you will tell me the Republican party supports a return to the Republic or the Democratic party is all about democracy.

Time to read some Derrida.

Yes, Jim, of course I am. I am dealing with the only noticeable political force that is identified with libertarianism. Since they are the only visible libertarians, they are the only ones who matter.

If you wish to argue with the LP that they are not true libertarians, have at it. I you are going to claim that “classical liberals” are libertarian, then you are not using the term “libertarian” they way it exists today.

In today’s world, “classical liberal” is conservative – Buckley style conservatism, Cruz style conservatism. Those people are not properly called libertarian. They share some views with “libertarians” but not other views. They are not socially libertine, unlike today’s “libertarians.” Most are for a strong national defense, something that today’s “libertarians” don’t even understand, no matter what they mouth.

And with that, I’m done with squabbling about the meaning of the word.

John —

You know just enough to get things all mixed up.

No. Classical Liberalism is NOT associated Buckley, Cruz, et al. Those clowns (though sometimes claiming otherwise) are associated with views that are antithetical to the ideas and ideals of Classical Liberalism.

Really, do some research before affirming your ignorance. Sorry to sound offensive, but you are really off the mark here. Things are not as cartoonish as most talking heads have made you believe.

Try https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism

Jim,

“Simply answer my question.”

Which question?

Sylvan —

Just wondering … how much force (i.e. intolerance) can be applied to guarantee tolerance?

Jim,

To be tolerant doesn’t mean you have to be tolerant of everything and everyone. When people make action that are intolerable, i.e. action that causes harm to someone either psychologically or physically, then these persons need to be protected.

To get rid of the Nazi intolerance people in the 1940s had to fight the bloodiest war to date. To get rid of slavery the USA had to fight what most calls a civil war and a minority calls it a war of aggression. WW2 annihilante the intolerant part of Germany, leaving the decent German to rejoin the world. The intolerant part of the USA south survived to this day. It has not been annihilated like the Nazis were. They were free to act as they wished for a long while with segregation and went mainly dormant since the Civil Right acts of the 1960s. Only since the election of Obama have you seen that crass come out in force leading to the nomination of Trump and the threat of revolution. Tolerance can accept words, but it will defend itself against actions.

Sylvain —

Enough with your proof of the existence of Godwin’s law.

Since your reply raised my blood pressure (physically harming me) and left me with a tinge of angst (harming my psyche) you have caused me harm. That is a true statement.

Do I now get to retaliate — to use force to stop your intolerance?

Do not call my claims the product of the slippery slope fallacy. It is your squishy terms that are the horror on the Left — terms that can justify all acts of intolerance under the banner of tolerance.

Keep in mind it was your socialists who slaughtered close to 100 million in the 20th century? 100 million. Yet you advocate for more in this century.

You will justify the dead simply because intolerance cannot be tolerated.

Sure, you will say, “Not me. I just want to stop intolerance. Isn’t that a good thing?”

However, you advocate the release of intolerant passions on the Left to perform their destruction once again.

And that cannot be justified. Ever.

Jim,

1) The mention of Nazis in this context is only to show that intolerance (you agree that the nazi were intolerant right), has to be met at some point with force. Chamberlain work really to find common ground with the Nazi intolerance. But a war was necessary to defeat that ideology).

Being tolerant doesn’t mean that you have to tolerate intolerance.

“Since your reply raised my blood pressure (physically harming me) and left me with a tinge of angst (harming my psyche) you have caused me harm. That is a true statement.”

You are free to try to go to court claiming that I have caused you harm.

“Keep in mind it was your socialists who slaughtered close to 100 million in the 20th century? 100 million. Yet you advocate for more in this century.”

Communism is not the left. Communist are conservative reactionaries that oppose individual freedom. So no the left didn’t kill 100$ people in the 20th century. Conservative did.

“You will justify the dead simply because intolerance cannot be tolerated.

Sure, you will say, “Not me. I just want to stop intolerance. Isn’t that a good thing?””

Who is the one calling for an armed revolution? Republicans as it was propose in the video of Mike Pence events.

Who is hinting that the election is rigged but only if they lose? Republicans.

Who claims the sanctity of the US constitution while claiming that Scotus is unconstitutional? Republican.

”You will justify the dead simply because intolerance cannot be tolerated.”

The left will not fire the first shot in the next American civil war which is brewing but it will not bow wither.

Meanwhile American conservatives are behind the anti-gay law in Russia (Communism and conservatives go hand in hand), and Africa which is causing the death, beating and jailing of thousands of gays. The most conservative state are the putting to death the highest number of people.

Derrida (er, Sylvain) —

Nice deconstruction of words. Your definitions are soft plastic.

This is great: all the movements pinned on the Left were really movements of the Right. So the (what you call, though do not define) real Left has no blood on its hands. It is all about love, justice, and tolerance.

Still unanswered (directly, at least) is how much force (intolerance) can be applied to acts of intolerance. And the offshoot of how the threshold of intolerance is defined, and who defines it.

Based on your comments above, total annihilation of intolerance (such as any act that “hurts someone else psychologically” ) and the intolerant is justified.

That is a vile position.

Sylvain, by comparing to Nazis those of us who do not go along with the latest diktats from the culture war kommisars, you show your utter intolerance of difference.

Guess what! Adults deal with disapproval all the time. The left’s culture warriors, on the other hand, want to turn it into a crime. Ask the bakers in Oregon who were driven out of business for refusing to participate in a gay “wedding.” Two family businesses now have been destroyed. There was no value in this other than showing that opposition will be crushed. The people who wanted the cake could easily have gone to the many other bakeries in the area. But, they chose instead to complain to the government.

Do you approve of their behavior? Do you think the government should have ruined the lives of those bakers?

Let’s have an honest answer.

John,

I did not compare the Right to Nazi. Nazi were intolerant and a war was needed to get rid of them, and the war was wage in the name of tolerance.

The UN declaration of human rights mentioned all the category of people that were hurt by Nazi except homosexuality.

I actually don’t car s**t of what you think or believe about anyone. It is not what you think that bother me it is the action that are troubling.

It is not a problem that you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. No one is forcing you to get gay married. It is not a problem that you are pro-life. No one forcing you to bring a pregnancy to term or to get an abortion.

It is a problem when someone produce an anti-abortion video which later lead an idiot to kill three people because of this video. Or having FoxNews attack doctor Tiller as a murderer until another idiot shoot him at Church. Or having American conservatives promoting laws that injured thousands of people in Russia and Africa. If they had their way they would do the same in the US.

“Ask the bakers in Oregon who were driven out of business for refusing to participate in a gay “wedding.””

If they are such good Christians why did they never refuse to bake cake for adulterers. The word homosexual or gay appeared in the bible only in the 1800s translations. Yet if someone believe in the jealous God of the Bible, there would be many reason to refuse to bake a cake, but the only reason invoke is the homosexuality. Gay marriage is a state definition to be use by the state. It doesn’t affect the any religious definition. The Catholic Church still define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Catholic Church still does’t marry homosexual couples.

When a baker says that he refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding he does several thing. Mainly, he legitimizes gay marriage, because if there is no such things as a gay marriage, than you cannot sin in baking a cake for something that is false or doesn’t exist.

Just like a gun manufacturer doesn’t participate in a murder by manufacturing the weapon that is use in a murder. A baker doesn’t participate in a wedding by simply baking a cake.

“Two family businesses now have been destroyed.”

Maybe these family could have chose a better fight than this one. Hand’s on T-shirt in Kentucky gain its case against a gay activist (the difference was in the message).

“There was no value in this other than showing that opposition will be crushed”

You mean there was no value of being a moron. Their are many reason they could have given to say that they refused the business of the gay couples (Too much work, not available at that time). They could have been vague but they were specific and probably had a big smirky smile telling them no and why.

“Do you approve of their behavior? Do you think the government should have ruined the lives of those bakers?”

The bakers ruined their own lives, although in the end they ended up making money out of it (over 352k in found raising) . They could have easily chosen the easy way out and get richer in the process. But no they couldn’t miss a chance to say to the couple that they are so disgusting that their money as no value at there place of business. Yes, the government needs to step-up to protect individual people. Though, the amount of the fine is much greater than the damages.

For comparison, the Jewish hospital in Montreal was fined 10,000$ for having forced out of the cafeteria an ambulance driver who was eating an home made lunch for the reason that his spaghetti was not kosher.

Jim,

Yes, label of right and left are very de-constructive. If you take a compass you have at one extremity Isis at 1 degrees which and the American alt-right at the other extremity around 359 degrees. Since a compass is round, there is very little difference between the 2 of them. Watch out the severity of the terrorist act produced by the US alt-right after the election.

Sylvain, you try really hard to not understand, because doing so would hurt your cause.

To wit: ““Ask the bakers in Oregon who were driven out of business for refusing to participate in a gay “wedding.””

If they are such good Christians why did they never refuse to bake cake for adulterers. The word homosexual or gay appeared in the bible only in the 1800s translations. ”

Christians *do not* refuse to bake cakes for gays. They refuse to bake a cake to be used in a ceremony celebrating homosexual behavior. They would likewise refuse to bake one for a ceremony celebrating adultery.

But, you are dodging the question. You are turning from whether you condone the attacks on these bakers into whether they are good Christians, which is utterly irrelevant.

So, I will ask you again: do you condone what was done to those bakers.

Yes, or No.

Sylvain —

You are the first accidental Sophist I have met — all other Sophists I met are at least smart enough to understand their methods and intentions.

You still have not answered any question posed to you. You simply construct replies based on logical fallacies you cannot even see. Yet, hidden within each reply is a vile heart claiming to be tolerant.

John —

I can answer for Sylvain, “The bakers must be annihilated. That is what the tolerant do to those who oppose their ever-changing views of tolerance.”

Jim,

What’s the diffèrence with you prosing that the gay is annihilated

Maybe you should write the answer you want to read.

Sylvain —

Now you can add liar to your list of personal attributes.

Jim, Sylvain is losing it. Progressives always suffer some sort of breakdown when confronted with logic from realists.

“Christians *do not* refuse to bake cakes for gays. They refuse to bake a cake to be used in a ceremony celebrating homosexual behavior. They would likewise refuse to bake one for a ceremony celebrating adultery.”

They still bake cakes for adulterers which is as big a sin as sodomy. Do you have an example of a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a couple who at least one person is celebrating its second marriage while the first spouse is still alive. Try to get married twice in a Catholic Church while the first marriage ended in divorce (this is adultery). Somehow bakers are very selective about which celebration they do not condone. A baker that would always respect the entire list included in the Bible would probably win its case, but be bankrupt by the lack of business.

What don’t you understand in the following answer:

“The bakers ruined their own lives, although in the end they ended up making money out of it (over 352k in found raising) . They could have easily chosen the easy way out and get richer in the process. But no they couldn’t miss a chance to say to the couple that they are so disgusting that their money as no value at there place of business. Yes, the government needs to step-up to protect individual people. Though, the amount of the fine is much greater than the damages”

If one right is violated he can sue in court. It is not the gay couple fault that the baker are stupid enough to cite discrimination has the reason for their refusal.

But the level of harm is not 135k.

It’s not a lie that conservatives American promote laws that suggest the death penalty for being gay.

Sylvain, your argument by hypocrisy is as tiring as it is absurd. You again fail to understand the fundamental difference between baking for *someone* and baking for *some event.*

And, you have yet to answer my question: show the bakers have been sanctioned by the government for refusing to baking for a gay wedding?

Should the New Mexico photographer have been fined for refusing to use his creative talents for a gay wedding?

Should a midwestern pizza parlor have been driven out of business by mob action for simply responding to a reporter’s leading question about whether they would cater a gay wedding?

I am not interested in hypocrisy. It is irrelevant, and you have also asserted it in a way that has nothing at all to do with this case. Their behavior is not hypocritical, but even if it was, does hypocrisy justify government sanction?

Sylvain, now you are completely delusional. American conservatives do not support the death penalty for being gay or for homsexual behavior.

If you consider to make this idiotic assertion, you should at least provide some links proving it.

John,

There is no difference why the cake is bake whether it is to pee on it, it is for a person,or for an event (a wedding ceremony is not a sin and the sin is the act of sodomy or having sex with someone else than your spouse (incuding after divorce).

According to your logic a person selling or manufacturing a firearm used in a murder should be as guilty as the murderer. Yet in this case you see it is not logic. A baker cannot be blame for what the cake is used. It seems that Christian Americans are taking God or the pop has a bunch of idiot.

As for the photographer it is different since they need to be at the celebration. In the case of the New Mexico photographer they had a moron for lawyer who used a very bad défense strategy. A baker is not part of the ceremony.

Sylvain,
You have once again refused to answer my questions.

And, you assertion that there is no difference what the cake is used for is, well, insane. Of course there is. Wedding cakes are decorated specifically for the ceremony. Did you not know that?

But, I’m done unless you answer the questions.

I think you are afraid to be honest here, or you would have answered them.

John,

Yet you haven’t answered my question should a gun seller and manufacturer be held responsible for a murder committed by one of their product?

It is regrettable that you don’t accept the answer though it explains that if you can’t accept the truth then you cannot win in court.

And if was afraid I would be posting on a site where everyone agree with me.

Sylvain,
Sylvain, I had an answer to you, but I will not post it. Until you answer my questions, you are not arguing in good faith. You are deflecting. I am not interested in watching you squirm and wiggle again.

Answer them please, or there is no point in continuing.

Should the bakers have been sanctioned by the government for refusing to bake for a gay wedding?

Should the New Mexico photographer have been fined for refusing to use his creative talents for a gay wedding?

Should a midwestern pizza parlor have been driven out of business by mob action for simply responding to a reporter’s leading question about whether they would cater a gay wedding?

John,

It seems that you have a though time reading:

1) the court in Oregon and Colorado rendered the right decision. But I disagree with the amount of the damages. The baker cannot discriminate, even with your claim of an event or that the cake is a special order. Some exception could apply if written text is included.

2) The New Mexico photographer is another matter. Their lawyer clearly provided an inadequate defence. Since the photographer presence is required throughout the ceremony.

3) for the pizzeria. As a business owner you have to be sure to not offend your customer. People are free to support the business they want and conservative are organizing hundreds of boycott campaign every year.

Okay, so on number one, you believe that the state can compel someone to make an artistic creation (a wedding cake) against their will, using the full and violent force of government.

On number two, you still have not answered. Whether the defense was inadequate is utterly irrelevant to my question.

On number three, you believe that it is okay for a reporter to seek out a business and ask a leading question in hopes of getting them in trouble. You are correct that this particular issue does not involve governmental coercion. On the other hand, the pizza place didn’t actually discriminate against anyone, so apparently you think boycotting people for their mere opinion is okay?

I will add another question: do you approve of the Canadian government prosecuting Mark Steyn for his editorial comments about… gee, I don’t know if it was gays or Muslims, but assume one or the other?

So, when you answer number two, maybe we can proceed.

Could you provide more about Stern. First time I hear about and most of what I found was in 2007-8.

John —

Let me speak for Sylvain, “In the end we must annihilate them, as we must annihilate all of the intolerant. Why annihilation? It’s the same path as our brothers, the Bolsheviks, substituting class consciousness for intolerance. It is not enough to change behaviors. Instead, all residual beliefs (identified by such minor movements as a facial twitch) must be discerned and destroyed. Otherwise, the reactionary forces of intolerance will reappear. And we cannot have that. Really, what are a few million eggs when we are talking an eternal omelet?”

Jim,

It sounds like you are are using Trump talking point..

Sylvain —

Again, snarky.

However, you said that the intolerant must be annihilated. Those are you words. And that is your agenda.

Regardless of how you choose to impugn others, you desire a more evil future. You do.

You have a vile sense of humanity. Truly.

Yet the violence and threat of armed revolution are done by your people.

Sylvain, I see you are still refusing to answer my simple questions. By failing to do so, you show that you now understand that your position is untenable.

Jim,

The baker and photographer made a mistake. They should have taken Schindler’s path and provided defective service and products. There is no telling what mistakes one might make when pressed into slave labor.

It’s one of the reasons Greek warships used only volunteer rowers. One disgruntled slave could gum up the needed coordination during a battle. It would seem anyone planning a wedding would think similarly. But then, the Left rarely thinks of the consequences of their actions. Assuming they think at all, of course. And when they do, they think they can merely bully those who don’t agree into compliance.

The answer to your question How much force is needed to ensure tolerance?: infinite. At best, it can only give the appearance of tolerance; at worst, the opposite.

DAV —

I wrote an article to address just the natural progression of this: https://mises.org/library/logical-progression-public-accomodation

Jim,

But then there would need to be a standard for quality. Cell phones catch fire; cakes collapse; sugar and salt look a lot alike; cleanliness might be overlooked in the heat of the moment; chickens can taste like rubber; the camera focusing mechanism could fail; nervousness might result in a lot of jerky shots; etc. And maybe cash on delivery would lessen of any claim. The usual effect of unsatisfactory performance is a refund.

Even if one could make a successful claim in court, the satisfaction of ruining the event would remain and enough of them could end the practice of forced labor with these circumstances.

DAV —

However, Americans have a history of acquiescing to government arrogation of rights — witness the surrendering (for the most part) of gold and alcohol to government, not to mention the Patriot and Homeland Security acts.

To the point, remember, conservatives call those who break laws criminals. They do not care if the law is morally justified or not. Break one of governments so-called laws and you are a criminal, with no debate allowed. And most conservatives do not want to be considered as such. So I truly doubt any mass civic disobedience on the Right. (The Left views the breaking of laws quite differently, so the are more willing to violate a law in defense of what call rights).

The response from the Right will be the same as it has been for years, “We’ll elect more (or different) Republicans to restore the Republics,” even as the Republicans feast on arrogated rights with glee.

In addition, since when do you expect the courts to hear such cases and decide based on natural (or whatever you want to call them) rights. Didn’t the courts recently create the law (the so-called right) we are referencing. And now you expect those very courts to defy stare decisis and overturn what is now their precedent.

Highly unlikely, you have to agree.

So, yes, your scenario could work theoretically. But do you really think it will occur in our current situation?

Corrected version:

DAV —

However, Americans have a history of acquiescing to government arrogation of rights — witness the surrendering (for the most part) of gold and alcohol to government, not to mention rights lost due to the Patriot and Homeland Security acts.

To the point, remember, conservatives call those who break laws criminals. They do not care if the law is morally justified or not. Break one of governments so-called laws and you are a criminal, with no debate allowed. And most conservatives do not want to be considered as such. So I truly doubt any mass civil disobedience on the Right. (The Left views the breaking of laws quite differently, so they are more willing to violate a law in defense of what they call rights).

The response from the Right will be the same as it has been for years, “We’ll elect more (or different) Republicans to restore the Republics,” even as the Republicans feast on arrogated rights with glee.

In addition, since when do you expect the courts to hear such cases and decide based on natural (or whatever you want to call them) rights. Didn’t the courts recently create the law (the so-called right) we are referencing. And now you expect those very courts to defy stare decisis and overturn what is now their precedent.

Highly unlikely, you have to agree.

So, yes, your scenario could work theoretically. But do you really think it will occur in our current situation?

John,

I did not refuse to answer your question I’ve asked more information about Steyn.

”I will add another question: do you approve of the Canadian government prosecuting Mark Steyn for his editorial comments about… gee, I don’t know if it was gays or Muslims, but assume one or the other?”

I found nothing supporting your claim that the Canadian government is prosecuting Mark Steyn. The only thing I found was a 2008 complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress which is a non-governmental institution. That the court holds hearing on a civil dispute is how the court system functions. The complaint resulted in a victory for Steyn so I hardly see how is free speech was infringed upon. Plus, the article that caused the complaint in the first place has been abrogated in 2011 or 2012. That section was put in following the request of the Jewish lobby to prevent hate speech.

If the Canadian government had prosecuted Steyn it would have been for a criminal case. I do not find such a case.

As for the photographer I do not understand how you cannot get that if I say it is different because they are actually at the ceremony, that a photographer should not be fined. But again they had idiot for lawyer and they lost.

Did at least once. It was called the American Revolution.

Unless someone can create a law that actually defines an expected level of quality the cases would end up in civil instead of criminal court and the plaintiffs would have to bear the cost of pursuing this instead of relying upon state coffers.

I think there is a backlash coming. If the Left thinks they’re being unfairly treated now just wait until it happens. Hopefully, the Libertarian Party will gain more acceptance but, until then, history indicates there will be a real knockdown fight and the Left will have succeeded in destroying what was once (and still is) a great idea.

Sylvain,
Okay, I got one answer, on Steyn. So, the government didn’t “prosecute” him. So, tell me, if the “court” had found for the Islamic Congress, and Steyn simply ignored the ruling, would not the government have come after him? It matters not where it is called a criminal proceeding or not, if it is used to suppress free speech. Since Steyn had to expend resources to defend his speech, it is already obvious that free speech no longer exists in Canada. And, of course, others in Canada have been fined for their speech.

Now, back to the US. You have not answered whether:

The bakers should have been fined.

The photographer should have been charged.

Jim,
You are of course right about public accommodation jurisprudence. Like so many ideas that were at least partially justified by the civil rights era, it has far exceeded its utility. Public accommodation is now just one more way that the left can extend special privileges to members of any group they deem “oppressed.” Ironic and very Orwellian, that they oppress people through the use of laws (or jurisprudence) originally created to relieve oppression.

As to the Conservatives, I think your attacks are out of line. Conservatives indeed feel strongly that people should adhere to the law. We believe that if a law is unjust, people may choose to demonstrate that by breaking it on purpose, but that they must also accept the punishment – this is the heart of civil disobedience. But, by definition, those who break the laws are criminals – maybe petty criminals, but they are engaging in what is, by definition, criminal actions. We believe that unjust laws should be removed from the books, of course.

As to mass disobedience… that is something that is very hard to forecast. You can be sure that if there is firearms confiscation, there will be mass disobedience. Just take a look at the market for “80% lowers” to see how many people plan to keep their weapons. Or, look at Australia, were their severe confiscation only captured 1/8th of the guns that were out there.

For that matter, notice how people are stocking up on guns and ammunition. As the probability of Hillary’s coronation increases, so do gun sales. US gun manufacturer stocks have been great performers. Certainly people I know have far more ammunition and guns than they can possibly use aside from very dire straights.

But, in claiming the right won’t do anything, you offer no alternative. So are you just whining about fate, or is there something you advocate that will result in resistance?

Jim.,
On the topic of resistance, have you read Charles Murray’s recommendations? He has put forth quite a practical plan to use civil disobedience to cripple the administrative state in its excesses.

John,

I said above that the baker should have been fined and that the photographer shouldn’t have.

Why the photographer was charge is because its lawyer proposed a défense based on the first amendment which was not a problem of free speech.

How about you answer my question?

Regarding Stern if an order of the court is not respected than at some point it will be enforced.

You are about to vote for a guy who makes a living of suing people. How many Trump contractor had to declare bankruptcy after he refused to pay them with threat of suing them.

John —

“On the topic of resistance, have you read Charles Murray’s recommendations? He has put forth quite a practical plan to use civil disobedience to cripple the administrative state in its excesses.”

Do you have a specific article or book?

Sylvain,
First on the photographer. Nobody gets charged because of incompetent defense. Defense happens *after* they are charged.

On the baker, you thus approve of using the police power of the state to punish someone because someone else was offended by their actions. Would that be a correct statement?

As to your question on the gun seller. Do you admit there is a substantial difference between being offended and being shot?

If the gun seller knows that the gun will be used in commission of a crime, the gun seller is properly held to be in violation of the law. If the gun seller does not know, then the gun seller is innocent.

You comment on Steyn is a non-response. Do you think the court should have found for the offended organization? Do you think that the courts in Canada acted properly in fining other individuals who *sole* offense was offending members of protected classes?

John,

The offense is denial of service, not about hurt feelings. In this case everyone can have service except for the reason of gay wedding.

People lose in court because of incompetent defence.. The court is there to decide if the plaintive case as merit or not.

The only use of a gun/handgun is to a human being. The killing can either be a murder or self-defence (In the US, it is mainly decided by the sex and race of the victim). So according to your logic a gun seller should be sued for participating in a murder. Yet, they are not because a seller cannot be held responsible for what is product was used for. So a seller not participating to anything.

Jim,
Charles Murray: “By the People: Rebuilding Liberty without Permission”

“You comment on Steyn is a non-response. Do you think the court should have found for the offended organization? ”

From the little I know, they reach the correct decision since the complaint was not the intent of the law.

The true intent of the law was to halt hate speech that promote violence.

” Do you think that the courts in Canada acted properly in fining other individuals who *sole* offense was offending members of protected classes?”

It is not a protected class but individual.

It is a case by case to know which complaints were founded and those who weren’t. But in this case it is just not a matter of offense but a matter of speech inciting violence.

For example, in Canada we don’t have a problem of right wing nuts killing doctors for providing abortion. Since the people. The same antiabortion group that are free to instill hate in the USA would be convicted for their incitations to murder. Rush Limbaugh would have lose a defamation case when he called Sandra Fluke a prostitute in front a democratic hearings some years ago.

Sylvain —

But it is OK for you to boycott a store simply because you do not like the appearance, beliefs, or whatever, of the owner. You are allowed to express your intolerance — in fact, you call that a right.

So your issue is not intolerance, per se — it never has been. Your issue is Marxist envy, which is why you get to express intolerance against those who have more property than you. You have a your double standard that only applies to the store or business owner, because they hold some so-called petit bourgeois privilege over you.

You feel completely justified in your intolerance. And if a few hundred million lives are lost due to your illness — the Fourier complex — so what. Right?

Sylvain…

“The offense is denial of service, not about hurt feelings. In this case everyone can have service except for the reason of gay wedding.”

We are not talking about what silly law may exist. We are talking about what you think is just. Do you think it is just for someone to be prosecuted for refusing to provide a creative service to someone who can get it easily elsewhere? If so, why.

“People lose in court because of incompetent defence.. The court is there to decide if the plaintive case as merit or not.”

Are you a lawyer or wealthy? If not, I cannot explain your indifference to the often huge expense and anxiety that results when an innocent is sued.

“The only use of a gun/handgun is to a human being. The killing can either be a murder or self-defence”

Wow. Do you really believe that? So I was killing someone, not just enjoying myself, when I shot 50 rounds at a paper target yesterday? And, all those hunters (including in Canada) who bring home deer or ducks accidentally shot those animals when the only use of their guns is to kill people?

” (In the US, it is mainly decided by the sex and race of the victim). ”

Wow, again. Do you really believe that?

“So according to your logic a gun seller should be sued for participating in a murder. Yet, they are not because a seller cannot be held responsible for what is product was used for. So a seller not participating to anything.”

You are not making sense. I said a gun seller could be prosecuted for selling a gun to someone knowing they planned to shoot someone with it. Doing that is vastly different from selling a product where they don’t know how it will be used. There are about 300,000,000 guns in the US. Every one of them has been sold at least once. A very small percentage of them have been used to kill people.

You will note that this is very similar to the bakery case. If someone walks into a bakery and buys a cake, the baker doesn’t know what it will be used for. But if someone walks into a bakery and orders a cake customized for a homosexual marriage ceremony, the baker knows very well what it will be used for.

So, let me add another hypothetical… Catholic priests provide the service of holding marriage ceremonies. If one refuses to do so for a gay couple, should the government sanction them for refusing to provide a service?

Sylvain,
In the US it is also illegal to incite violence – that is one of the few exceptions to the First Amendment. The law in Canada is most certainly not just that. It has been used to sanction people for nothing other than objecting to policies they disagree with.

As for inciting to violence… I presume, then, that you are in favor of locking up every fundamentalist imam in the country, since proper adherence to sharia includes murdering homosexuals. Would I be right?

We have about 150,000,000 Christians in the US. Fewer than .00001% of those have committed violence against abortion providers, even though antiabortion rhetoric has been heard by a large number of those Christians. So if that rhetoric is inciting violence, it isn’t working. In other words, by objective measure, it is not inciting violence.

As for Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke, if he were wrong in his characterization of her, she could have sued him for defamation here, too.

You might be shocked to learn that Canadian and US law are very similar, because both are derived from British common law.

”Do you think it is just for someone to be prosecuted for refusing to provide a creative service to someone who can get it easily elsewhere? If so, why.”

Yes, and I really don’t feel bad for people who choose to degrade other people.

You either offer a service or you don’t.

“l… Catholic priests provide the service of holding marriage ceremonies. if one refuses to do so for a gay couple, should the government sanction them for refusing to provide a service?”

If the priest provide the service in a catholic church then he cannot be sued. If he is providing the service for the city then he can and will be sued. But usually the city will hire someone that will accept to provide the service for gay wedding.

If the priest provide the service in a catholic church then he cannot be sued.

So, you are saying that you can’t be punished for refusing to support a gay marriage by providing a service when doing so in particular locations? Why is that?

Well, Sylvain, we finally get down to it. You are happy, gladly supporting the use of state violence against those whose only crime is insulting someone.

And that demonstrates why progressives must be fought tooth and nail. They are, in practice, no different from the communists of the USSR. Only the causes of their totalitarianism vary, but the totalitarian nature is unchanged. Demeaning someone is a state crime, punishable by the state, backed up by the full violent force of the police apparatus. Simply refusing to provide a service is “demeaning.” The concept of freedom does not exist, except you are free to do as you please within the ever narrowing confines of the rules of political correctness.

Also, you don’t mind violating the First Amendment’s protections of religion, the First Amendment’s protections of free expression, nor the Thirteenth’s protections against involuntary servitude. All can be justified by “either you offer a service or you don’t” as if that is a fundamental law of nature and man.

Sylvain, your position disgusts me. Your lack of human kindness disgusts me. You willingness to justify this totalitarianism for the sole purpose of avoiding insult doesn’t, however, surprise me in the least, for it is typical of modern progressives.

John,

“Well, Sylvain, we finally get down to it. You are happy, gladly supporting the use of state violence against those whose only crime is insulting someone”

It is not really surprising that you still don’t understand that the issue is not the insult but the denial of service. Which end up saying to people that there money is not worth what the society at large says its worth.

“And that demonstrates why progressives must be fought tooth and nail.”

I think exactly the same about your position. Except mine doesn’t force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term (even in case of incest and rape) with no help and thousands of dollars in medical bill for the delivery. Or doesn’t create second class citizen whose money has no value because of who they are.

Comparison to USSR is a phony attempt to divert attention from the reality. I’m against death penalty. The USSR clearly weren’t. And the USA either. More than 143 people sentenced to death were later found innocent. The vast majority were black male. Yet you show no concerns for the death of innocent persons as long as they are black.

“Also, you don’t mind violating the First Amendment’s protections of religion, the First Amendment’s protections of free expression,”

Actually, judges who understand the issue much better than you do evaluate that these rights are not infringed.

“nor the Thirteenth’s protections against involuntary servitude”

As for the 13th amendment, I don’t think that their would have been a war over servitude if all that was ask of the black owner of business was to bake a cake, take photograph and make flower arrangement, while being paid for it. Being forced to make the product a business does and being paid for it is very far from servitude. Such a claim can only be made by someone who believes that a million dollars loan from is father is a small amount of money.

“Sylvain, your position disgusts me.”

John don’t worry I’m just as disgusted about your position.

“Your lack of human kindness disgusts me”

For one like you that claim I lack human kindness, hundreds will claim that I’m a very kind person. I gave lessons to devout Christian Jehovah Witness, Muslim and atheist and all find me very kind that I respected their beliefs. And they even understand my explanation on such subject and are able to see the difference. I admit that I provide a more cogent argument in my native language.

“You willingness to justify this totalitarianism for the sole purpose of avoiding insult doesn’t, however, surprise me in the least, for it is typical of modern progressives.”

Says the person who is unable to understand that the issue as nothing to do withinsult.

“So, you are saying that you can’t be punished for refusing to support a gay marriage by providing a service when doing so in particular locations? Why is that?”

1) A church is not a place of business.
2) A church does not represent the government.
3) The definition of marriage by Scotus define the interpretation that the government as of each person. It doesn’t define how each church define marriage.

Very sad that you don’t understand this very simple fact.

Wiggling again and refusing to address my point, so I will repeat it:

We are not talking about what silly law may exist. We are talking about what you think is just. Do you think it is just for someone to be prosecuted for refusing to provide a creative service to someone who can get it easily elsewhere? If so, why.

As to the comparison with the USSR – it is very apt. Political correctness was on of the tools they used to control the population. You are using the same thing when you punish someone’s refusal to be a slave to someone else’s desires.

“Denial of service” should not be a crime. You think it should. You believe that the minute someone offers something for sale, they should lose all choice.

And then you bring up “judges who understand the issue better than you.” That argument by authority is again a dodge. It is also ad hominem.

So, again, do you think it is just for someone to be prosecuted for refusing to provide a creative service to someone who can get it easily elsewhere?

Note, don’t hide behind legalisms. The word “just” is the critical word in that sentence. Please explain exactly why it is *just* to prosecute someone for that. Not for “refusal of service” which is simply a phrase which describes what they are doing.

We are talking about justice here, not legalisms and formalisms.

It is, however, ironic that progressives are so quick to leap to legalisms when it suits them, and so happy to throw them out with the bathwater when it does not, for example, the 1st Amendment and the 13th Amendment in this case.

As to the Catholic priest analogy, you shot yourself in the foot there.

“The definition of marriage by Scotus define the interpretation that the government as of each person. It doesn’t define how each church define marriage. ”

That is correct. And that also means that it doesn’t define how a baker defines marriage. The baker chooses not to participate in a marriage ceremony that is not a marriage in the baker’s eyes. The baker chooses not to create a work that proclaims a marriage that is a lie in the baker’s eyes.

“Do you think it is just for someone to be prosecuted for refusing to provide a creative service to someone who can get it easily elsewhere? If so, why.”

Yes, and that someone is an individual who is suing a place of business who’s reason to exist is to bake cakes. Because we are talking about a place of business and not someone who bakes cake for fun from and does not make any attempt to find more costumer.

How can you be sure that they can easily find the service elsewhere? Are they as good? They might also refuse to serve gays? What if they all refuse to serve gays? You claim it is easy but you do not demonstrate it.

“You are using the same thing when you punish someone’s refusal to be a slave to someone else’s desires”

Again having a baker bake a cake which is how he chose to make is living and getting paid for it is the anti-theses of slavery. If someone was grabbed on the street and forced to provide a service that he doesn’t usually make. Then you would have a point. But comparing a baker to a slave either shows lack of morals or unbelievable stupidity.

““Denial of service” should not be a crime. You think it should. You believe that the minute someone offers something for sale, they should lose all choice.”

You evidently don’t remember the Jim Crow era and the ”separate but equal” period which was no where close of equal. Denial of service to blacks was institutionalized and they could rarely find any kind of service or ended up paying a lot more for it than the amount paid for.

”Note, don’t hide behind legalisms. The word “just” is the critical word in that sentence. Please explain exactly why it is *just* to prosecute someone for that. Not for “refusal of service” which is simply a phrase which describes what they are doing.”

The insult is not the problem and why the person is sued. The costumer doesn’t care what the baker think of them. They care that they don’t have the product they wanted to buy.

The first thing you learn when studying Law is that being just, morality, or even justice is not the end game What matter is the law and how it is interpreted. It is to the elected government to choose which law it want to edict.

Remember the kind of law Jim Crow favored?

This is from Wikipedia list of Jim Crow laws:

“1942: Miscegenation [Judicial Decision] Supreme Court of Arizona interprets anti-miscegenation statute in a manner which prohibits persons of mixed racial heritage from marrying anyone. Court acknowledges that its interpretation is “absurd” and recommends that Legislature pass amendment thereto.”

This unjust law and others like it were rendered obsolete by the Civil Right Acts of the 1960s.

Do you believe a person should be punished for who she/he is? Should you be punish for being White ,Christian or a Male? If not why should it be okay for someone else?

Again the Thirteen and First amendment are not in question here.

”That is correct. And that also means that it doesn’t define how a baker defines marriage.”

If the baker believe that a marriage between two men is a sin, it doesn’t negate the customer religious belief that it is not a sin. Which religious beliefs are the most important? The entity created by the baker which is not him, or the customer religious beliefs?

Also, if the bakers beliefs are that there are no such thing as gay wedding, then he cannot object to something that does not exist.

“The baker chooses not to participate in a marriage ceremony that is not a marriage in the baker’s eyes. The baker chooses not to create a work that proclaims a marriage that is a lie in the baker’s eyes.”

In refusing to bake the cake the baker legitimize the gay wedding. Something that is not real cannot be sinful.

Sylvain —

Do you discriminate when entering into trades?

Just because Marx hated the petit bourgeoisie (and the rest of humanity as well), doesn’t provide justification for you to hate certain traders.

Answer this: Are you justified being intolerant when it comes to trading? If so, why (a Marxist-free answer, please)?

Jim,

Which trade are you talking about? International?

If you mean bakers:

I don’t hate bakers

Answer this: Are you justified being intolerant when it comes to trading? If so, why (a Marxist-free answer, please)?

Do you find it intolerant to ask that a place of business should not discriminate against a customer, as long as he pays for the provided service? How many people or business have been sued for not discriminating?

“How can you be sure that they can easily find the service elsewhere? Are they as good? They might also refuse to serve gays? What if they all refuse to serve gays? You claim it is easy but you do not demonstrate it.”

That information on the first baker case is widely available. There are many bakers in the area. The baker that was driven out of business had a long history of serving gays, knowing they were gay.

Google can be your friend, as can paying attention when events happen.

“Again having a baker bake a cake which is how he chose to make is living and getting paid for it is the anti-theses of slavery. If someone was grabbed on the street and forced to provide a service that he doesn’t usually make. Then you would have a point. But comparing a baker to a slave either shows lack of morals or unbelievable stupidity.”

Oh really? Funny, I never realized that being in business meant that anyone can command your services. I am a free-lance technical consultant. If company X wants me to perform a service, am I compelled to do so if they offer to pay me? Do I have to get on a plane and go to their facility in Mumbai if they offer to pay for the ticket, just because I might choose to do so for another client?

Sylvain, how about answering what business, trade or profession you are in? Have you ever offered a service on the market for pay?

What is it about freedom that you have such a hard time understanding?

And then you bring up Jim Crow. Jim Crow was a system of discriminatory laws, not individual actions by private individuals. But, hey, liberals bring up Jim Crow in this context by reflex – I’m surprised it just now appeared in this thread.
“Do you believe a person should be punished for who she/he is? ”

We have gotten this far in this thread and you still don’t understand the crucial difference between behavior and identity. Sad, really, but scary, because powerful progressives make the same mistake. Of course, some of them conflate the two on purpose – to restrict the rights of those who disagree.

“If the baker believe that a marriage between two men is a sin, it doesn’t negate the customer religious belief that it is not a sin. Which religious beliefs are the most important? ”

The customer is requiring that the baker provide services in direct, knowing furtherance of sinful behavior, which means the baker is being forced to engage in sin. The customer is not being forced to go against his religious belief. At the very worst, he is being given evidence that someone else disagrees with that belief. That is no crime.

“Also, if the bakers beliefs are that there are no such thing as gay wedding, then he cannot object to something that does not exist.”

That is just sophistry. You know that this is no argument. The baker does not believe that nothing is going to happen – that she is being asked to participate in something *which does not exist*! How absurd!

“In refusing to bake the cake the baker legitimize the gay wedding. Something that is not real cannot be sinful.”
You need to go take your medicine. That last statement is delusional.

John,

I have google enough that the Oregon baker made money out of the lawsuit.

One brought is business online to try to avoid the definition of place of business.

Can you actually provide proof that any of the business actually closed-up shop.

Those people closed to not have to face other gay customers. Total for the settlement 5000$

http://www.christianpost.com/news/another-christian-family-run-business-closing-after-refusing-to-host-gay-wedding-140650/

BTW this couple could register as a Church and then refuse to do gay wedding. The downside would be that they could not advertise their Church like a business. To get religious status is very easy that even John Oliver did it.

————————

This one was still profitable but chose to close.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/

Concerning the closing of the pizzeria. It is okay If they refuse to cater a gay wedding, but people should reward them for it. The reporter asked a question, the owner didn’t have to answer, or answer it stupidly.

“Sylvain, how about answering what business, trade or profession you are in? Have you ever offered a service on the market for pay?”

I own a driving school.

“What is it about freedom that you have such a hard time understanding?”

I would ask you the same thing . Do you believe that only some people are free, or that everyone is free. You seem to think that it is the first.

For me it is the second. Everyone is free to do has they please. You are free to have a business and make money. The customer is free to buy your service and pay for it.

As for your consultant job I’m sure you are able to find many reason to refuse a job without annoying everyone so you won’t lose business. Just as a baker can decline service without saying the real reason. It seems that the Christian owners takes a particular pleasure in saying that they are bothered by the gay wedding, when they could easily deny on the basis of too much work.

Sylvain,
You are deflecting. That people stepped in to help the bakery doesn’t change the fact that the government attempted to hurt them with a very high fine.

So, again, you agree that someone *should* be fined a huge amount for nothing other than offending someone else.

The claim that they closed to avoid dealing with gay people is a lie, since they had been dealing with gay people before they closed. Furthermore, I clearly explained to you the difference between refusing service to a person, and refusing service for a ceremony. Once again, because that destroys you totalitarian narrative, you chose to ignore it.

As to freedom… you are a liar. You do not believe in freedom. Your very actions show it. You believe that some people should be able to use the police power of government to compel other people *against* their will. Being compelled is the very opposite of freedom.

It took a long time to get here, but in spite of your deflections, you have clearly revealed yourself to be just the sort of totalitarian progressive that I suspected.

Sylvain —

Trade occurs when you exchange one thing for that which you value greater.

So you are one half of a trade when your purchase something with money. You and the store owner are equals, just on opposite sides of the trade.

Answer the first question (mine): Do YOU find it intolerant when someone chooses store A over store B, simply because A is more green than B? Or A is friendlier than B? Or you and A share a common first language? Or A sells the types of books that speak to your ideology? I could go on.

If you can exercise intolerance (which you claim as a right), why can’t the store owner.

This is where your Marxist ideology will resort to the class struggle which separates the owner from his customers, or the employer from his employees.

Justify your position without resorting to the shadows of Marxism and class envy — if you can.

John —

In his bizarre notion of liberty, Sylvain said the baker could declare himself a church and then he would be free to exercise his right to property.

Yet, Sylvain also believes churches should be forced to purchase medicines and fund procedure they find repulsive and against their teachings.

Sylvain views are relative, they bend like soft plastic. So, in his mind, he is not lying, since only the bourgeoisie class can lie.

Jim,
Yes, Sylvain has a problem with logic. The only thing consistent is Sylvain’s idea of what results should be. The reasoning about it moves all over the place because Sylvain is, in fact, incapable of defending those results with reason.

BTW, I don’t know if Sylvain is a he, a her, or something I don’t know the PC term for.

“Do YOU find it intolerant when someone chooses store A over store B, simply because A is more green than B?”

No, a business cannot claim discrimination, even if the reason is because the owner is black, gay, handicapped, or all the above. You see the owner is those thing the business is none of the above.

Last year a Christian couple decided to tear its contract with the photographer they had hired after they discovered that he was accepting to photograph gay wedding. They even had the audacity to ask for the reimbursement of the deposit.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/this-photographer-had-the-best-response-after-losing-a-clien?utm_term=.lhQ1e4z4ZP#.uwEX8gNg6Z

Minorities often have many difficulties keeping a business in white concentrated area.

BTW, the gay couple could not have won the case if the baker had been smart enough to find non discriminatory reason to refuse. Like too much business for that week.

“If you can exercise intolerance (which you claim as a right), why can’t the store owner.”

A free market means that you are free to buy what you want with your money and where you want. A place of business cannot refuse to sell what they advertising that they want to sell. It is the business that are sued not the store owner. You realize that they are two different person under the law? Creating a business brings many fiscal benefit to the owner. The business can deduct all expenses from its income. The business has tax exemption that individuals don’t. Business also have obligations that individual don’t have. It is not the fault of the customer that the business is own by only one person.

John,

“… attempted to hurt them with a very high fine.”

I agreed from the beginning that in many cases the amount of the fine is too high, but it is a different thing that denial of service based on discriminatory reason.

“Furthermore, I clearly explained to you the difference between refusing service to a person, and refusing service for a ceremony. ”

This difference is only in your head. There is no difference. This is another thing you don’t understand. I understand that you want it to be a thing but it isn’t. Just like you are trying to say that we are not talking about the law.

“As to freedom… you are a liar. You do not believe in freedom. Your very actions show it. You believe that some people should be able to use the police power of government to compel other people *against* their will. Being compelled is the very opposite of freedom.”

Says the guy who want to compel women to bring all pregnancies to terms.

You have very strange and loose definition of totalitarianism.

Jim,

“In his bizarre notion of liberty, Sylvain said the baker could declare himself a church and then he would be free to exercise his right to property.”

It was about the couple with the chapel business. If they are a church they cannot be force to host gay marriage. But there is a downside, They would not be able to advertise their services. It would have to be word of mouth that bring them possible wedding.

Meanwhile, in the pro-Trump America

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/bomb-plot-somali-immigrant-kansas-militia-charged

A few question:

Should a family be force to move to another country for coming out against Trump sexual abuse? Because of threat by pro-Trump?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/trump-accuser-says-she-leaving-country/AAbPU8RUe3AUjWvzt5OpMO/

Sylvain —

In your usual abuse of language, you have answered nothing. You find it OK (and tolerant) to exercise your intolerance against an individual simply because he has the audacity to open a store to serve you (to be the other side of a trade).

This is Marxism against the petit bourgeoisie. You provide no ethical claim to support beliefs — they (your beliefs) are exactly what you want them to be, in any given time.

John is correct, “Yes, Sylvain has a problem with logic. The only thing consistent is Sylvain’s idea of what results should be.”

My question to you: Why do you hate and exercise it against others? Seriously, why are you such a hater? Is it because, in order to come to terms with your failed position in life, you adopt Marxist reasoning to justify hating those who have worked harder than you and achieved more than you (the baker, the photographer, etc.)?

Sylvain —

And this is nonsense:

“A free market means that you are free to buy what you want with your money and where you want. A place of business cannot refuse to sell what they advertising that they want to sell. It is the business that are sued not the store owner. You realize that they are two different person under the law? Creating a business brings many fiscal benefit to the owner. The business can deduct all expenses from its income. The business has tax exemption that individuals don’t. Business also have obligations that individual don’t have. It is not the fault of the customer that the business is own by only one person.”

A free market is free, which means both sides are free to trade or not. Your claim — that a free market exists where one side of the trade is coerced — is Derrida-esque, to say the least.

Individuals also deduct certain costs as well.

However, you are arguing from law, not morals or ethics. An action against another (such as actions derived from the hate of those who work hard to provide goods and services for fickle and, in your case, intolerant customers) is never justified by law — your references to Nazi Germany show you at least grasp this.

Answer the question with reason and without Marx, if you can.

“This difference is only in your head. There is no difference. ”

You are the one who kept insisting that the bakery discriminated against gays. It did not. The owners, individual humans, refused to participate in a ceremony.

“Says the guy who want to compel women to bring all pregnancies to terms.

You have very strange and loose definition of totalitarianism.”

Says the person who wants to compel people to engage in sin.

There is a big difference between preventing murder, and forcing one to engage in sin in order to not hurt someon’s feelings, don’t you think? By your logic, it is totalitarianism to penalize one for murder.

“You are the one who kept insisting that the bakery discriminated against gays. It did not. The owners, individual humans, refused to participate in a ceremony.”

You want to mean that the business did not deny service. Then where was the cake. The business could have contracted another bakery to bake the cake.

Also, why was it so important for the baker to state clearly that his refusal was because of their life choices that he refused to bake the cake? Why didn’t they stated other non-discriminatory reason? (for example: too much work that week-end)

Sylvain —

“Also, why was it so important for the baker to state clearly that his refusal was because of their life choices that he refused to bake the cake? Why didn’t they stated other non-discriminatory reason? (for example: too much work that week-end)”

This is the essence of you and your morality. Maybe I do not believe I need to lie throughout out my life in order to keep folks like you happy. Obviously, you gave no issue with lying. But we knew that already.

”However, you are arguing from law, not morals or ethics.”

Law is what matters.

Answer this question:

Imagine you live in a world where you are a minority. You work hard and get paid for your labor. Since you are a minority you are also paid less than others, and you are charged more for your basic necessities. But still you are able to put some money asides to get married. But you and your wife are not of the same race. Very happy, you go to the only market in the city where there are three baker. Two baker sells wedding cake for 100$ but refuse on moral ground to sell you any cake because they claim interracial marriage is a sin. The third baker being in a situation of monopoly accept to sell the cake but is charging twice the amount he usually sells his cake.

Do you agree that this situation is prejudicial to you?

Why was interracial marriage considered illegal, immoral and sinful 50-60 years ago, but not so now?

Do you have any example where you where personally denied service for being different than others?

“You want to mean that the business did not deny service. Then where was the cake. The business could have contracted another bakery to bake the cake.”

Are you really that dense that you cannot understand the point, made twice?

“Also, why was it so important for the baker to state clearly that his refusal was because of their life choices that he refused to bake the cake? Why didn’t they stated other non-discriminatory reason? (for example: too much work that week-end)”

Because, as good Christians, they did not lie, of course!

“Law is what matters.”

Thank you for illustrating the moral and ethical bankruptcy of progressives! You have done a fine job of it in this thread. Your statement is classically what one would expect of a drone of the regulatory state.

Then you bring up race. It is irrelevant.

Then you ask if one of us has been discriminated against.

Yes, I have been refused entry to several businesses because I am a concealed carry weapons carrier.

Sylvain —

You still owe me anything answer.

Imagine this: You are a member of a minority group in a country. You scrape together all you have to open a store. You desire to offer the best goods at the best price for whomever walks into your store. Yet, enough folks chose not to enter your store because you do not adequately speak their first language — they exercise intolerance . This your call fair and just simply because the store owner had the audacity to open a place of so-called public accommodation. And he had the nerve to align with the petition bourgeois instead of the masses.

As far as being denied similar service. Happened all the time when I was in the Peace Corp, when I was charged the tourist rate. Also happens when I am forced to pay a rate higher than someone older and in possession of an AARC card. Happened when I was younger on a road trips and hotels would exclude me because of my age. Ever spend the night in a car because of intolerance?

Yet, in all situations, the property owners were within their right to treat me differently. And I never looked to a gunman (the societal apparatus of coercion and compulsion) to settle the matter in my favor.

An … not anything in the first sentence.

Jim,

”Imagine this: You are a member of a minority group in a country. You scrape together all you have to open a store. You desire to offer the best goods at the best price for whomever walks into your store.”

Yes this is what most people who open a business do.

”Yet, enough folks chose not to enter your store because you do not adequately speak their first language”

This actually happens everyday, people refusing to do business with a commerce because of who is the owner.

”they exercise intolerance .”

They might be idiot if they refuse to do business because of silly reason. Now, would you suggest that the customer is forced to use a business.

”This your call fair and just simply because the store owner had the audacity to open a place of so-called public accommodation. And he had the nerve to align with the petition bourgeois instead of the masses.”

This make no sense.

”Also happens when I am forced to pay a rate higher than someone older and in possession of an AARC card.”

Is it only certain older people or everyone that get to a certain age. I mean when you will reach that age, you will have the same rate as that guy. The same thing with alcohol where everyone can buy it starting at 21, driving at 16, voting at 18. All this is applied to everyone not only a group of people.

”Happened when I was younger on a road trips and hotels would exclude me because of my age. ”

In this case you would probably have won your case. Even more if it was a condition of extreme weather.

In the first two case you were right. In the first, you were not a citizen of that country. In the second one there is no denial of service. In the case of the hotels you are wrong the owner had no right to refuse you a room as long as you had the money to pay the rent.

”And I never looked to a gunman (the societal apparatus of coercion and compulsion) to settle the matter in my favor.”

This is your right. It is also the right of others to sue when they feel wronged.

What’s your thought on Trump forcing contractor to either sue him to get pay for their work or accept a reduced offer. Either case putting them out of business because he is supposedly not satisfied with the work.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

This is the guy who you are voting for or at least the majority off people on this blog.

John,

‘Yes, I have been refused entry to several businesses because I am a concealed carry weapons carrier.’

Did they still denied you service if you didn’t have your gun on you?

Sylvain —

“This actually happens everyday, people refusing to do business with a commerce because of who is the owner.

They might be idiot if they refuse to do business because of silly reason. Now, would you suggest that the customer is forced to use a business.”

So why is the baker not just an idiot for refusing to serve? Why is he a criminal but the consumer is not?

In case I haven’t been clear enough: I would force NO ONE to trade with ANYONE. You would — at the point of a gun, nonetheless. But only on one side of the trade. You are free to be intolerant (which you now call stupid), but the shopkeeper is not free.

This is nothing other than Marxist rhetoric, where you impugn the petit bourgeois (shopkeepers) because of the hate you have for owners of capital, no matter how small.

You still have not answered why a consumer can be intolerant and stupid, but a shopkeeper must not. And that remains the question on the table.

Note: Other than to see if you respond, I am done here. Really, wasting time with an accidental Sophist is just that — a waste of time.

Sylvain —

Forgot this …

“”Happened when I was younger on a road trips and hotels would exclude me because of my age. ”

In this case you would probably have won your case. Even more if it was a condition of extreme weather.”

That is law in many states, where hotels can set a minimum age. I don’t think I would have won any such case.

“Did they still denied you service if you didn’t have your gun on you?”

They have no idea if I have a gun on me. However, I respect the wishes of the business and do not bring my firearm in. I may also boycott them, or not.

Shall we consider the baker. What if they posted a sign, just like the businesses in my example, that say “we reserve the right to not serve those occasions with which we disagree.”

Would you respect them? I think not. And, please, so we don’t go on the idiotic merry-go-round again… no, it does not say “to not serve gays” because, in fact, that was not the policy of the bakers who were shut down.

Jim,

Note who Signed these into laws: (ie Reagan)

U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21 › Subchapter I › § 1982
42 U.S. Code § 1982 – Property rights of citizens

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
(R.S. §?1978.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1982

42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981