Previous 11 - 20 Next
" I would like to see additional scholarship on this question. The promise of "potentially" saving money "in the long run" sounds nebulous and aspirational (like many liberal policies), not empirical." A quick search of my library's databases brings up a ton of scholarship dealing with this question.
"Just what is the attraction of an artificial, chemical "high"? Escape from reality? Try reality ... it's so much more interesting!" As someone who enjoys pot, I can say that I enjoy both reality and a chemical high. Both have their appropriate time and place. Have you tried both? If not, how would you know reality is "so much more interesting"?
"“We have a president who just came out today with his lowest job approval ratings -- 38 percent,” he said, referring to the new Fox News poll that dropped Wednesday. “We’re getting into Jimmy Carter territory. And I never thought we’d see something like that [again]." “I think by next month, we’ll surpass the late, great Jimmy Carter,” he added with a chuckle." Actually, we saw that in July 2008 when a Fox News poll found a 30% approval rating for George W. Bush. In fact, the whole year of 2008 Fox News polls showed President Bush with an approval rating of 35% or less. Plus, Jimmy Carter is not dead.
In response to:

Baking America with Nutty Tolerance

ca7 Wrote: Mar 06, 2014 4:25 PM
While what you say is true, what the auther of this column said (or at least implied) is still inaccurate.
In response to:

Baking America with Nutty Tolerance

ca7 Wrote: Mar 06, 2014 3:36 PM
"Meanwhile, numerous cultures (like Iran’s and Russia’s) execute people for engaging in homosexuality." Russia does not do this, at least not at this point in time.
Well, the doorman could know this information from other ways outside of the building. Or perhaps they are holding hands, which is perfectly legal, you know. What if instead of two gay men the doorman refuses to open the door for someone that is openly displaying their religion by wearing a cross, a bindi, or a kippah? Is that acceptable?
j"Why is it ALWAYS discrimination if I disagree with you while if you disagree with me it is labeled as Civil Rights or discrimination?" Um, that's not discrimination. That is disagreement. It is discrimination when that disagreement leads one party to refuse service in a public establishment to the other party.
Exactly right, James. That is why Amy's position is confusing. She only supports the rights of some business owners to discriminate and not others. And yet she is ambivalent about the vetoed law and in favor of the current law in Arizona which allows for discrimination of gays in any business in Arizona, even those types of businesses that she thinks should be forced to serve gay customers.
"As for why didn't the couple just go to another local bakery, what if they live in a small town in a very rural area with no other bakeries?" I'd like to expand on this statement I made. What if it wasn't a bakery or photography business? What if someone lives in or is passing through a rural area with only one gas station within 100 miles and the person needs gas to get to the next gas station? Is it acceptable for the owner of a private gas station to refuse service to a gay person or couple passing through? What if two lesbians, one pregnant, needed that gas to get to the hospital to give birth? Should that gas station owner be allowed to discriminate against them?
I would say if you have a problem baking a cake or taking photographs for a business that is more craft and skill based rather than an artistically based business (and I do count bakeries and event photography businesses as more of a craft than art though artistic elements do come into play), you should find another business or set up your business through a church or whatever not-for-profit organization where you serve only the people that are like you already. I think this question of how to define these types of business is part of the cases that have been tried, right? And it's a good question that needs to be legally resolved. As for why didn't the couple just go to another local bakery, what if they live in a small town in a very rural area with no other bakeries? You ask a good question about how well could you serve someone you deeply disagree with on a moral or religious level. I am a librarian and I often serve people that I deeply disagree with. I often help people find information and materials that I find deeply offensive but I am also a professional and I always do my best to serve everyone professionally and completely.
"If I go into a place of business and they don't have what I want, I can go to another place that pleases me and they lose the money I would have spent there." If they don't have what you want, you obviously go elsewhere. BUT that is not what is being questioned here. The question is if you go to a business and they have what you want to buy and they sell that same thing to everyone else, can they refuse to sell it to one group of people or do they have to sell that item to everyone that is willing and able to buy it? In Arizona currently you could say "I sell this item to anyone except homosexuals" (and you wouldn't even have to use your religious beliefs to justify it) but if you said "I sell this item to everyone except Muslims" you would be breaking the law. In Colorado, both examples would be breaking the law. The question is not about forcing a business to sell a particular product, it is about who you are required to sell the product to if you choose to sell the product at all.
Previous 11 - 20 Next