I've been open and honest with my dealings with you on this topic. That you read that as sarcastic and dismissive is, well, your problem. (There's me being dismissive, I guess... and maybe it's a tad sarcastic for pointing that out too...)ChickenSoup wrote:Ok, look. I'm not talking about Our Father's Most Chosen Country The United States of America. I'm talking about principles you believe or don't believe to be right. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, anyway, so there's that. Either way, why should we always have to consider what the founding father would have wanted? They're dead. They had some great ideas, but they also had some pretty bad ones. I would never put their written opinions on a level that is higher than what I believe to be right for the sole fact that "something something Founding Fathers something something America!"
Anyway, look. I'm not sure you're worth talking to. I don't want to trample your condescension party or anything, but I think I've got an idea of how you're going to respond to dissension to your opinion and I quite honestly see no point in discussion this further with you. You're sarcastic and dismissive, and it's painful to read.
Except, there's one last thing I have to address:
Well, some of the founding fathers had slaves. So... not to rain on your condescension parade, but maybe we shouldn't take the words of people who have been dead for 200 years as Gospel?It's like you guys have never heard of the principles our nation was founded upon...
Every objection you've raised I've addressed by stressing the principles of liberty and freedom. You've chosen not to respond on those grounds. So we're not really having a discussion anyway, are we?
As for our Founders: So what? I never said they were perfect. Might I dismiss anything you have to say on moral issues for the shortcomings in your own life? I'm reminded of stones and glass houses...
I'm also reminded of a historian's answer when questioned about how Jefferson, a man so eloquent and passionate in this writings about liberty, could own slaves. His was response was that this was the wrong question to ask. Instead, he said, "We should ask why a southern gentleman of this era was as vehemently anti-slavery as he was?"
Why do you not ask that question? Why do you dismiss the things these men stood for so casually? Their stand literally changed the world and made the entirety of the race freer than it ever had been to that point. So they fell short of the ideal, so what? Show me a man who hasn't.
Stop judging these people by the standards of today. Tell me your own conduct wouldn't likely to be found lacking 200 years from now! Be fair minded for once and judge them instead by the standards of their time. Do that and you will find them to be exceptional by any rational measure.
I have spent a lot of time trying to explain what liberty is, how it works, and why it's should be vigorously defended even in cases we find distasteful. I've given you reading suggestions to learn further.
And I'm sarcastic and dismissive of you? Yeah... one of us is wasting our time and it's not who you think it is.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on my usage of my word. I think it's important and necessary.Bruce_Campbell wrote:Eh, I actually don't disagree with you--completely. I just think the term "slavery" is a good example of hyperbole, and I don't see any reason to trot it out except to get a rise out of people. Yes, I think it weakens your argument. More importantly, I don't really know where you stand. Do you think this is as bad as dragging someone away from their home and forcing them to work for you for the rest of their lives, or are you comparing it to a child having to obey his or her parents? It distracts from the issue. (Also, I was on my phone and too lazy to type out a more detailed reply. Sue me. :p)selderane wrote:Since this is the only thing you've latched on to in the many, many words I've written on my argument, I respectfully thank you for your agreement to the larger point I'm making. Because I know you are not one to ignore the larger argument you can readily dismantle with a flick of the wrist to instead be a pedant and nitpick words.Bruce_Campbell wrote:So wait. You want to diminish meaning of the word slavery while using the shock value of the word to bolster your argument?
You are trying to make me a better debater, and I salute you.
Back to the original topic... this is a pretty big grey area for me. On one hand, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage. I also think that if you're running a public business then you should be willing to serve all of the public, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, whatever. On the other hand, I don't think people should have to participate in something they find morally repugnant, even if I believe that they are wrong. I've been a business owner myself, and as backwards as I personally think this guy is (sorry), he shouldn't have to do something that violates his personal convictions.
I mean, if he was refusing service to this couple only because they were gay, I think this would be a lot more clear cut. I agree that if they were just in there to get a dozen donuts this probably wouldn't be an issue. I think good arguments can be made either way, and I honestly haven't made up my mind.
I'm glad to see we are truly of an accord on the other points. Regardless of how "backwards" a man's actions are, so far as they do no harm to another man, he ought to be unmolested by anyone.