XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/17/2018 10:28 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 10/17/2018 9:51 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >> On 9/28/2018 10:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>> On 9/28/2018 9:33 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>> On 9/28/2018 8:52 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>> On 9/28/2018 7:32 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 9/25/2018 5:58 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 9/25/2018 1:48 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 9/19/2018 2:36 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2018 12:03 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> {snip}   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> If they (the "Liberals and gay activists") demand tolerance of   
   >>>>>>>>>> their viewpoints and behaviors, then they are under the same   
   >>>>>>>>>> obligation to be tolerant of others viewpoints and behavior,   
   >>>>>>>>>> which means that they can not call for boycotting of the baker   
   >>>>>>>>>> or other tactics designed to interfere with the baker's business.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Not tolerating a person because they belong to a certain class   
   >>>>>>>>> of people (what the baker is doing) is far different than not   
   >>>>>>>>> tolerating behavior (what the boycotters are doing).   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Both are manifestations of intolerance.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes.  One is a good form of intolerance, the other isn't.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> LOL!  Good form of intolerance?!  I've never heard such a moronic   
   >>>>>> statement in my life.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You just justified intolerance.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> What a joke.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I don't tolerate a lot of conduct such as drunk driving, not paying   
   >>>>> your taxes or public nudity.  I'm guessing you don't tolerate a lot   
   >>>>> of conduct as well.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Drunk driving violates the rights of others.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Not paying your taxes violates the rights of others.   
   >>>   
   >>> And public nudity?   
   >>   
   >> I don't see what right is violated.   
   >>   
   >>>> Does not baking a cake violate the rights of others?   
   >>>   
   >>> It depends on the definition of what a right is.   
   >>   
   >> I've defined countless times in this forum: A right is the authority   
   >> to exercise a power.   
   >   
   > Using that definition, how does not paying your taxes violate the rights   
   > of others?   
   >   
   >> Does not baking a cake violate the rights of others?   
   >   
   > I'm not sure until you clarify how not paying taxes violates the rights   
   > of others.   
   The right of life, liberty, and happiness are violated:   
      
   If one person doesn't pay taxes, they have more free time and income   
   than the person that must then pay more to compensate.   
      
   Assume tax freedom day of April 24 (2015 est.); all days prior to that   
   are 'tax bondage days'.   
      
   If you don't pay your taxes, someone else must compensate, and their tax   
   freedom day extends accordingly.  You, by not paying your fair share of   
   taxes, limits the freedom (liberty) of another in that they are then   
   obligated to compensate for your abdication of responsibility.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)