Myself and my fellow liberals and dems are a collection of individuals, each with a distinct set of opinions and preferences. Lumping these individuals together and assigning them some standard characterizations is creating a straw-man; a figment of your imagination that does not actually exist. Reality is far more complex than that oversimplification. There is a constructive, non-inflammatory method of producing a "typical" reference point for discussion purposes, but I find your methods to fall short of that.BillyBob66 wrote:Well, that's not very nice. I did not remember you agreeing with me, and you are certainly going against type of your fellow liberals and dems and those you are going to vote for by agreeing with me on that, so perhaps you can forgive my assumption and failure to remember your past divergence from liberal orhodoxy. I stand corrected.GregD wrote:As I recall I ultimately agreed with you on that point about the baker. Accuracy in your posts does not seem to be a priority for you.BillyBob66 wrote: For Greg, my right to choose not to bake him a cake hurts him. And never mind that his right(if the gov gives him that right, it is certainly not one of the God given inalienable rights spoken of by our founders) to force me to bake him a cake hurts me, by forcing me to do something I find repellent, I do not count.
But it hardly matters as I was just using "Greg" as an example of typical liberal thinking any way, and you are going to vote for those who strongly disagree with me on that point, so you will if possible enable them to persecute people who don't want to bake a cake for someone else for unapproved reasons, so what difference does it make that you agree with me on that one point? You still stand with the persecutors of those who fail to bake on command.
But, you said to Scott "Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others." Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be a perfect example of that. Since you now point out that you agree with me about the baker, does that mean you are now NOT saying "Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others."?
One final clarification about your past opinions. After lengthy debating about forcing women and girls to take biological males into their bathrooms, didn't you finally admit that this was a bad thing? I know you did, but I was never quite sure if you were sincere or just being sarcastic.
Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others. Compelling you to do business that you do not want to do harms you. There is a conflict. As a society we should strive to strike the least objectionable balance. A wedding cake with decorations indicating the happy grooms or brides is maybe not so essential. Refusing to serve dinner to a same sex couple is maybe not so acceptable even if it appears the dinner is a private celebration of their wedding.
Regarding the bathroom issue, details are important. One example is a female high school student that is required to be in school, is required to change for required gym class, and has objection to being undressed in a situation that may include a transgender female. That student should be accommodated somehow - the use of separate facilities, for example.