Finding Neverland

Nobody was stopping anybody from moving to Canada when Trump got elected

If I want to see Milo Yiannopoulos speak on campus, I can't. If I want to hear Jordan Peterson speak on campus, I cant'. If I want to watch Gone With the Wind, which I paid for on my digital account, in my own home, I can't. The Left wants to control what I can and can't do, see and hear. They won't let me live my life. They want to force me to live according to their moral code. They are worse than the "moral majority" of the 1980s.

I stated they were worse than the Moral Majority of the 1980s, so you know I recognize the problems there have been in the Right. I supported the Left then, because I saw the problems you are referring to. However, just as some on the Right predicted, the Left kept going. And now they are just as bad, if not worse, than they said the Right would be. The Right of today encompasses people who would have been considered very left in the 1980s. The problem was and is, that some people feel they have the right to tell others how to live. It was just as wrong when gays and blacks were discriminated against as it is now that Christians and whites are harassed.

I used whites and Christians as an example, and you are correct, its not on the same scale. I'm more concerned about the trend, because it is going in that direction. The baker in Colorado, who did NOT refuse to sell the gay couple a cake, if you look at the facts, is still being harassed by the government based on his religious beliefs (another example). There are people being attacked as "nazis" for simply saying that America is not systemically racist (another example). The Left is actively promoting a totalitarian society (my main point). Because I see the Left as the main problem today, I'm calling them out. If I were living during the McCarthy era, I would be calling him and his supporters out for the same reasons.

No. He refused to make a specific cake for them. They could have purchased any of the cakes that were already made. That is an important difference. He did not refuse to serve them, he just would not make a cake that specifically celebrated their marriage.

1. What I think is morally right for his decisions is irrelevant. It is his morals that guide his actions. The only time I, or we, should get a say is if he physically harms someone.
2. My question is a reframe of your second one. My question is my answer. Do YOU believe that someone should be able to force someone to work unwillingly for them?

Let me reframe that.
1. Do you think it is right to force an artist to make create art that they don't want to?

"What if someone's personal morals tell them it's okay hurt someone?"

I literally said in the next sentence that it was not ok to hurt someone physically.

"Only physically? So if he harms someone in other ways it's fine?"

The concept of rights is that you can do what you want as long as you are not taking away another person's rights. So, If you're referring to emotionally hurting someone, then yes, it is fine because you don't, and can't have a right to "not be offended." If you are referring to something else, then you will have to spell it out for me.

"I also believe that if someone is going to turn away customers they disagree with, they need to reconsider owning a private business"

So you think Facebook and Twitter should reconsider having a business because they ban people? That is "turning away customers they disagree with." Are you going to mention the ToS to protect that argument? Jack Philips' ToS was he refused to violate his own morals in his cake designs.

"Don't be a bigot, then turn around and complain when you face consequences for being a bigot"

So the consequences of his actions, which you admitted he had the right to do, is to be continuously legally harassed by people? If you believe that it is ok to abuse the government services, that are meant to address legal wrongs, to try and force people to work against their will, then you don't believe in rights. You just believe in forcing your beliefs on others.

If, by consequences, you meant they wouldn't shop there, then we agree. That's all they had to do, pick another baker.

Instead they chose to use the legal system to harass him. The Supreme Court even found, in their ruling, that the Colorado government had demonstrated overt "religious animus" against him.

"I was referring to him losing customers, not being legally harassed"

But he was legally harassed and continues to be legally harassed (lawsuits). This is encouraged by the left. They lost in court, but they won't stop until they drive him out of business. No one can think or act differently than the left wants.

You wouldn't walk into a kosher or halal butcher shop and demand ham, would you? Would you think that people should be able to force those butchers to provide ham or bacon?

"And those black people in the 1950s just had to use another water fountain and lunch counter. That's all they had to do, right?"

You do realize that it was a law, not the choice of owners, that blacks could not be served, right? It was Jim Crow LAWS, not Jim Crow "policies." My whole point is that people should be free to do what they want, without the government forcing them to live by someone else's beliefs.

"That would include firing people because of their religion or skin color, then."

What do you believe would happen if we allowed people hire and fire based on their racism, sexism, etc.?

"Kind of like how no one can think or act differently than the god of the Bible wants?"
"So you think bans on same-sex marriage were wrong?"

Of course I think the bans on same-sex marriage were wrong. I've already stated, numerous times in this discussion, that people should not be able to force their beliefs on others. The same-sex bans fall squarely in that category.

Forcing others to live by your moral code is tyranny. Accepting that people have different beliefs and leaving them to live by their own moral code is freedom. The problem is that the Left is twisting the definition if forcing.

They claim that the baker is forcing his beliefs on the gay couple by refusing to create a cake that celebrates their marriage, when, in fact, the couple is forcing their beliefs on him by trying to force him to do something that violates his beliefs. Once you realize that for him to live by his code he just has to be left alone, and for them to live by their code requires them to force him, and others, to violate their beliefs, it becomes pretty clear who is forcing their beliefs on whom.

"People would do it if they were allowed to"
"...if he loses customers or has to close up his business as a result like the bakers in Oregon, oh well. Don't be a bigot, then turn around and complain when you face consequences for being a bigot."

Do you believe that businesses that discriminate would stay in business or that they would be bankrupted?

I don't think anyone should discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, etc. However, do I have the right to force my moral code on a business owner?

Do you think that the problem of discrimination by businesses would largely be solved by boycotts without the need of government intervention?

Certain dress and hair requirements that Muslims and Sikhs have is oppressive to others?

Wait, I believe that wasn't meant to be directed at you, or rather I was being sarcastic in regards to what the other had said.

Near 6:50, I'm tired, wrapping up before going to bed, I'll have to check later cuz muh eyes ain't wanna strain.

Oh, and I had just seen pics last night before posting of new NYPD policy a cpl yers ago allowing Sikhs to wear beards and not cut their hair and wear their headress, so that's how they popped in, as similar issues have turned up with Muslims.

"It depends. We don't let radical Muslims live by their moral code in the US because it's oppressive to others."

It appears that you still don't get what I'm saying. A radical Muslim living by their own moral code oppresses no one until they try to force someone else to follow that moral code, or tries to stop others from following their own moral code, whether by means of force, intimidation, or law.

This is exactly what the Left is trying to do. They are trying to shut people up who say things the Left doesn't like. The Left is also trying to financially destroy people who behave differently than the Left wants. Living by your own moral code means you are responsible for your behavior. Forcing others to live up to your moral code is not living by your own moral code.

"Not all LGBT people have a moral code that requires them to do that"

I haven't once said that LGBT people do.

Please name one conservative or group suing a progressive business to ruin it.

Nice deflection. I have spoken, in this thread, numerous times, about the Left using the legal system to harass conservatives to financially ruin people. No goalposts have been moved on my part.

We've both already said that no one is forcing anyone to buy their products (like you said with Jack Philips) and that it was a perfectly fine behavior for dealing with a business you don't like. Organizing a boycott is just the same thing with more people. It is voluntary.

By using the courts, the Left uses the power of government to force its views on others. Which has been the focus of my whole argument, and the meme, I might add.

Because the Left uses the government to force people to follow their ideas, I HAVE to be involved in politics just to live my life.

The Equality Act could be used to force Jack Philips to bake the cake. It would disallow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from being used to protect his rights. I understand the goals, but forcing people to violate their beliefs is a violation of rights.

Obviously, LGBTQ people should not be discriminated against.

However, expecting religious people to support a bill that strips them of their right to live by their beliefs doesn't make sense.

This also brings us back to the idea of refusing service. I don't have the right to force someone else to perform work for me, nor should I have it. The same is true for everyone else.

Liberty means that people have the right to be assholes just as much as they have the right to be good people.

If we have the ability to force others to not be assholes (as we define them), then they have the ability to force us to violate our beliefs (when the assholes get into power).

A government that is powerful enough to 'cultivate virtue' is a government that is powerful enough to take away everyone's rights.

Which is the greater threat to liberty, and the rights of the people?
Someone having to choose another business to purchase from because the owner is a
bigot
Giving the government the power to force people to violate their beliefs

As I have stated before, which side is doing it now? Don't give me false equivalencies of what happened over 20 years ago.

You mean like from the Scopes trial to wanting to remove the Wizard of Oz from public libraries because Witchcraft, etc?

- oh, wait.

You still have not read this thread, and it shows.

I have stated, numerous times, that the Right and the Left have forced their views on others.

Which side is the greater threat to liberty today?

That was the whole focus of the question of who is abusing government power to silence and destroy people who dissent from their view.

However you insist on trying to insult me rather than have a real discussion of the issues.

No, of course I haven't.

Your inane drivel is typical of this site, and only distinguised by an extra dollop of stupidity from you. So there is no need.

We done?

"Google. Scopes. Monkey. Trial. and. trying. to. ban. The. Wizard. of. Oz. and. Harry Potter. from. schools. and. public. libraries. already"

How many times do I have to add the word TODAY to the question about conservatives trying to force their ideas on others before you get it?

This begins to bore me? Let's wrap this up and stop wasting my time, shall we?

Oh wait, I caught a word: "conservatives."

Conservatism by definition embraces established standards from a glorified mythologized fantasy past of yore. A retreat into a myopic monolithic ossified world is the essence of what it yearns for.
Indoctrination is the vehicle of said retreat, and society-wise because it simply wouldn't work as intended at the individual level. To wish to separate from this imposed inflexible status qua would be radicalism. Hence the ire aimed at the 'Leftist' bogeyman.

Liberalism, born out of the striving for individuality, self-expression, equal rights and opportunity for even the marginalized, represents that very radicalism.
Over the years, however, it too has become increasingly distilled, codified, myopic, monolithic, ossified at heart. Indoctrination, imposition, inflexible status quo.... starts to sound familiar, doesn't it?

AKA your leftrightleftright goosestepping musical chairs windup circus monkey dance is just the entwined twitching entrails of the same thing. Yous need to identify with something large enough to blind you of your own fetid insignificance. The Gods are gone, even the pretenders know that. So y'all turn to other isms to emblazen your tee shirts with. And yous are all the stupider for it.

Laterz,,,

"Don't like 'personal' (I know you?) attacks so you're gonna cry about it?"

Crying? Just observing. If you don't have an answer to my question, you don't have to reply. Your use of personal attacks pretty much guarantees you don't have a good answer to my point.

"Don't do it then."

What are you talking about?

You're not making a point, you're playing cultist.

Google. Scopes. Monkey. Trial. and. trying. to. ban. The. Wizard. of. Oz. and. Harry Potter. from. schools. and. public. libraries. already.

"If you don't like it, don't do it"

Are you trying to say that I made a personal attack on you?

Either you haven't read this whole thread, or you are being purposely obtuse. I've already stated that either side should not be using the government to force their views on others.

Now give me an example, today, of someone other than the Left, using the government to shove their beliefs down people's throats.

Oh cool, team politics for willful drones blissfully devoid of the ability to think for their ignorant knee jerk driven selves.
Thafuq does "either side" even mean?

Read my comment again, do a Google if you must.

We are done.

All you have is personal attacks and no reasoned discussion

Done? Hun, we ain't even begun.
If you don't like it, don't do it, or was that tooooo obtuse fer ya?

Wizard of Oz - not today
Scopes - not today

" willful drones blissfully devoid of the ability to think for their ignorant knee jerk driven selves"

Reduced to personal attacks already? How sad.

"Thafuq does 'either side' even mean?"

Read through the thread. I'm confident you'll get it.

Try reading YOUR sweet little reply, you massive moron.

Don't like 'personal' (I know you?) attacks so you're gonna cry about it?
Don't do it then. Done.