Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    co.politics    |    Nice state sadly overrun by libtards    |    50,863 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 49,765 of 50,863    |
|    Josh Rosenbluth to Peter Franks    |
|    Re: 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Bak    |
|    18 Oct 18 16:24:21    |
   
   XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/18/2018 3:22 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 10/18/2018 10:22 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On 10/18/2018 9:39 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>> On 10/17/2018 2:29 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>   
   >> {snip}   
   >>   
   >>>>> What right is violated by not baking a cake?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I answered the question (negatively impacts the pursuit of   
   >>>> happiness, and as a result harms the nation).   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you suggesting that I can demand anyone and everyone provide   
   >>> whatever I desire in my pursuit of happiness?   
   >>   
   >> No. I am saying the government can punish a baker for not serving   
   >> someone because it is securing a right.   
   >   
   > Does the baker have the right to not bake a cake?   
      
   Yes. This is a case of competing rights.   
      
   >>>> We just happen to disagree on whether that is a right.   
   >>>   
   >>> Disagree on what? The right to compel?   
   >>   
   >> We disagree about whether the government is securing a right when it   
   >> punishes a baker for not serving someone.   
   >   
   > What if there is no baker. Is the right still infringed?   
      
   No.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca