(02-27-2021, 02:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(02-26-2021, 08:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: If you are capable of wrapping your mind around principles, define how Democrats are against the Constitution, rule of law, free speech and freedom of religion? The red version of these concepts seem to be invading the capitol, lying habitually, and using the government to enforce religious beliefs.
What happened to the folks who refused to make a cake for a gay couples wedding, are they still in business? One can easily assume that their religious freedoms were not respected by the gay couple they =refused or recognized by the state that they lived in either. Strike 1
Imagine that I am a business owner -- a baker. Among my activities is making anniversary, birthday, retirement, and wedding cakes for customers. Most people don't ask for something inappropriate. If someone came to me and asked me to make a cake to be offered to a debtor that looks like a cemetery stone that reads "Pay up or end up in Lake Michigan with the fishies'" I would have a reasonable right to refuse such an order. Or if it is a birthday cake that thanks someone for being a compliant victim of a sexual pervert, I would also say no. I would be on solid ethical ground on both. As a business order I have the right to refuse a proposition not worth the consequences.
If I were baking a celebratory cake for "State Senator Snake" for winning an election for the Party that I hold in disdain... controversy is one thing (all elections have controversy) and there are two sides to most questions. If it had a more objectionable idea (such as "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler" with a swastika)... that goes beyond controversy. The "other side" to the pro-Nazi cake is that I'd rather supply cakes to bar mitzvahs.
So if I am queasy about homosexual or interracial marriage, do I have a right to refuse service? Probably not. Maybe if the message is excessively explicit, such as a depiction of sex or words not qualifying as family-friendly, it is easy to say no. If it is reasonably conventional (gay or lesbian couple or mixed-race couple) I would reasonably be expected to comply.
OK. What if the person making the cake is a subordinate who has religious objections to same-sex or mixed marriage? If I have no problem, then I expect that subordinate to go as far as possible without doing something something offensive to that person's sensibilities. I will put the statuette of the mixed-race or same-sex couple on the wedding cake. I will expect that devout employee to frost the cake and do most of the decorations while stopping short of having to name the same-sex couple (basically "Adam and Steve"). And yes, I will deliver it. My employee keeps the job. I make it clear that baking the cake or doing basic frosting and decoration to the extent possible for something else is not a moral compromise.
That devout employee may be a reliable worker. That may be the sort whom I can trust with diligence on the job and integrity in business transactions.
Quote:Why does a local court have the authority to undermine Constitutional and alter/ significantly change state elections laws and impact national elections these days? One can assume they viewed themselves as being above the law and having the right to undermine state law and Constitutional authority of the USA. Strike 2
COVID-19 may not have human agency, but it is easy to presume that it has no right to interfere with a local, state, or federal election. Election laws were adapted to fit the reality of people finding an election site too dangerous for their voting because the dangerous "Rona" was stalking. The laws were changed to allow people to vote who might otherwise have not voted. Both Parties concurred.
I certainly don't want elected officials saying that it is a voter's tough luck that a dangerous disease may be a consequence of voting.
Quote:Why do publicly owned corporations and institutions have the ultimate authority to restrict ban free speech, discriminate on the basis of creed and even prosecute and convict people without due process and determine outcomes? One can assume that the Democratic party does not recognize the Constitution as being the ultimate authority aka law of the land. Strike 3
Free speech is not an absolute. Criminal speech is not protected. Having been a teacher, I know certain things not to say because as a teacher (even if a sub) I had an obligation to avoid saying certain things. You would be surprised at how alluring late-teenagers can be in high school. (At the least I know that I am too old-fashioned to make someone forty years younger than me happy for a sustained time. An entity such as Facebook or Twitter (or for that matter, your local newspaper) has a right to determine that something libelous or defamatory does not make print or its electronic equivalent.
One can be a Catholic and think that an auto-da-fe is a service to a heretic or non-believer... but have no right to do an auto-da-fe (the Catholic Church has given that up a long time ago).
By the way -- Obama was far more observant of Constitutional norms than the wannabe despot who followed him as President.
Quote:Why did the Democrats either completely ignore, down play and in some cases support the violence that occurred all over the country for several months that directly impacted lots of peoples live and caused billions of dollars in losses? One can assume that the rule of law is not recognized by them and does not apply to them. Strike 4
I am far more troubled by someone going into a church or synagogue and mowing down the worshipers. I am more troubled by someone caught with pipe bombs who has anti-Islamic literature and a map that has the location of a mosque circled.
Rioting is of course a crime... and a Black Lives Matters rally is the wrong place at which to do arson, looting, vandalism, or assaults. The people who oppose police brutality generally oppose rioter brutality, too, and with all the cameras that people take along, someone might turn over video to the police or a DA. This isn't Detroit, Newark, or Watts in the 1960's anymore, in which one could get away without detection by people with cell phones. Even then "CBS 2", "NBC 4", and "ABC 7" camera crews in either Detroit, New York, or "ELL AY" (back then CBS was 2, NBC was 4, and ABC was 7 in all three metro areas) knew well what was going to happen with some of the footage that would never reach the TV screen. it might get its own screening in the offices of police and prosecutors. Tough luck, habitual offenders!
One does not have the excuse of "opportunity".
Quote:So, what do you think is going to happen when Liberal cancel culture meets American cancel culture? Keep in mind, there are no rules or protections that exist during a Civil War.
Wise people will choose to live and let live, and ideally the people to whom we delegate the responsibility to promote civic police (such as the cops) will enforce the practice of "live and let live". Violence except in self-defense (and self-defense is often the most brutal deed that people can do) is typically criminal.
Oh, by the way: the Architect of the Capitol has already assessed that the costs of damage to the Capitol building due to the right-wing riot of January 6 has already cost at least $30 millions -- and that is before damage to personal or entrusted property involving people in Congress and their staffs, compromises of national security, and any medical costs to treat members of the Capitol Police or either disability or bereavement costs.
Classic X'er, what you consider "Strike 3" and "Strike 4" are foul balls that do not count in the game. Watch the entire at bat.
Dave Bergman went to a 3-2 count, taking three pitches out of the strike zone and fouling off ten others. Watch the whole at-bat, which is one of the most remarkable at-bats ever in old Tiger Stadium or anywhere else. Bergman got "Strike 9" and "Strike 10". No spoiler. This at-bat is from 1984, and I remember it well.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.