The Republican Utopia

[Moiraine]

So being forced to serve drunks is similar to being forced to serve gays...

 

Kay.

[ZRod]

What religion says we should discriminate against those who are different from us?

[RedDenver]

 

 

So say muslim cab owners wont let drunks in their cab ( happens in Minn a lot) or gay print shop owners wont print westboro baptist posters. Should they be forced to provide those services? I don't think so.

 

That court ruling was and is out of their bounds, they say what the law is, not make law. A problem we've had for sometime now.

 

The 1st protects flag burning. It's disrespectful to those that have bled and died in service of that flag. Disrespectful yes, illegal no.

Same with refusing service on religious beliefs. I see it as authoritarian govt overreach when the state tells private business to whom and when they can conduct business.

The state is what created the rules for even having businesses and markets. Without the govt setting up and enforcing those rules, there would be no business. Part of those rules is equal treatment. You have the choice to follow the rules and have a business or not.

 

No, humans have traded and bartered since the beginning of time.

 

And that didn't always work well. For example, your trading partner steals your goods or renegs on an agreement. So laws were made to allow trading without some of those side effects, and to create and enforce these laws a govt or ruling body was needed.

 

And that's before we switched to currency instead of direct barter and trade. How do you have a currency without rules and enforcement of those rules?

 

What exactly those rules should be is a matter of debate. The idea that the govt can't tell private business what the rules are isn't true.

[Husker Red Til Dead]

So being forced to serve drunks is similar to being forced to serve gays...

 

Kay.

In what context? Just because someone doesn't like gays, or because its against their faith to condone it?

[Husker Red Til Dead]

What religion says we should discriminate against those who are different from us?

Well, the quran doesn't speak well of jews.

[Husker Red Til Dead]

 

 

 

So say muslim cab owners wont let drunks in their cab ( happens in Minn a lot) or gay print shop owners wont print westboro baptist posters. Should they be forced to provide those services? I don't think so.

 

That court ruling was and is out of their bounds, they say what the law is, not make law. A problem we've had for sometime now.

 

The 1st protects flag burning. It's disrespectful to those that have bled and died in service of that flag. Disrespectful yes, illegal no.

Same with refusing service on religious beliefs. I see it as authoritarian govt overreach when the state tells private business to whom and when they can conduct business.

The state is what created the rules for even having businesses and markets. Without the govt setting up and enforcing those rules, there would be no business. Part of those rules is equal treatment. You have the choice to follow the rules and have a business or not.

 

No, humans have traded and bartered since the beginning of time.

 

And that didn't always work well. For example, your trading partner steals your goods or renegs on an agreement. So laws were made to allow trading without some of those side effects, and to create and enforce these laws a govt or ruling body was needed.

 

And that's before we switched to currency instead of direct barter and trade. How do you have a currency without rules and enforcement of those rules?

 

What exactly those rules should be is a matter of debate. The idea that the govt can't tell private business what the rules are isn't true.

 

But therein lies the problem with lobbyists and special interests.

[Moiraine]

 

 

So being forced to serve drunks is similar to being forced to serve gays...

 

Kay.

In what context? Just because someone doesn't like gays, or because its against their faith to condone it?

 

Let's be real here, when it comes to America and businesses not serving gays due to religion, we're talking about Christians.

 

And if we're talking about Christians look no further than the gospel to find out how we should treat supposed sinners. Denying them service is not WJWD.

[ZRod]

 

What religion says we should discriminate against those who are different from us?

 

Well, the quran doesn't speak well of jews.

But this is a Christian nation right? So why would we need a law to discriminate when Jesus told us to love our neighbors and worry about the beam in our own eye? I can't recall him ever saying not to provide service or deny buisness to a sinner.

 

*edit* I see Moiraine already made the point.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

So say muslim cab owners wont let drunks in their cab ( happens in Minn a lot) or gay print shop owners wont print westboro baptist posters. Should they be forced to provide those services? I don't think so.

 

That court ruling was and is out of their bounds, they say what the law is, not make law. A problem we've had for sometime now.

 

The 1st protects flag burning. It's disrespectful to those that have bled and died in service of that flag. Disrespectful yes, illegal no.

Same with refusing service on religious beliefs. I see it as authoritarian govt overreach when the state tells private business to whom and when they can conduct business.

The state is what created the rules for even having businesses and markets. Without the govt setting up and enforcing those rules, there would be no business. Part of those rules is equal treatment. You have the choice to follow the rules and have a business or not.

 

No, humans have traded and bartered since the beginning of time.

 

And that didn't always work well. For example, your trading partner steals your goods or renegs on an agreement. So laws were made to allow trading without some of those side effects, and to create and enforce these laws a govt or ruling body was needed.

 

And that's before we switched to currency instead of direct barter and trade. How do you have a currency without rules and enforcement of those rules?

 

What exactly those rules should be is a matter of debate. The idea that the govt can't tell private business what the rules are isn't true.

 

But therein lies the problem with lobbyists and special interests.

 

What? I don't understand your point.

[knapplc]

The hope that anyone would rein Trump in is bogus. They're using him as a distraction to cram their laws down our throats.

 

Thanks, Republicans!

 

G.O.P. Lawmakers Like What They See in Trump. They Just Have to Squint.

 

After three weeks in the White House, Mr. Trump has made clear that he is going to continue promulgating conspiracy theories, flinging personal insults and saying things that are plainly untrue. And the Republican-controlled House and Senate seem to have made a collective decision: They will accommodate — not confront — his conduct as long as he signs their long-stalled conservative proposals on taxes, regulations and health care into law.

 

“There’s a widely held view among our members that, yes, he’s going to say things on a daily basis that we’re not going to like,” said Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the third-ranking Senate Republican, “but that the broad legislative agenda and goals that we have — if we can stay focused on those and try and get that stuff enacted — those would be big wins.”

 

Such accommodation is coming at a price, attracting incredulous or angry constituents to town hall meetings, leaving members flat-footed when presented with the latest presidential provocation and testing the capacity of now perpetually clogged phone lines on Capitol Hill.

[Danny Bateman]

The hope that anyone would rein Trump in is bogus. They're using him as a distraction to cram their laws down our throats.

 

Thanks, Republicans!

 

G.O.P. Lawmakers Like What They See in Trump. They Just Have to Squint.

 

After three weeks in the White House, Mr. Trump has made clear that he is going to continue promulgating conspiracy theories, flinging personal insults and saying things that are plainly untrue. And the Republican-controlled House and Senate seem to have made a collective decision: They will accommodate — not confront — his conduct as long as he signs their long-stalled conservative proposals on taxes, regulations and health care into law.

 

“There’s a widely held view among our members that, yes, he’s going to say things on a daily basis that we’re not going to like,” said Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the third-ranking Senate Republican, “but that the broad legislative agenda and goals that we have — if we can stay focused on those and try and get that stuff enacted — those would be big wins.”

 

Such accommodation is coming at a price, attracting incredulous or angry constituents to town hall meetings, leaving members flat-footed when presented with the latest presidential provocation and testing the capacity of now perpetually clogged phone lines on Capitol Hill.

 

 

I believe now and will continue to believe that history will not smile on Paul Ryan's tax cuts if the cost is the erosion of a functional, respectable government and our standing around the world.

[Husker Red Til Dead]

 

 

So being forced to serve drunks is similar to being forced to serve gays...

 

Kay.

In what context? Just because someone doesn't like gays, or because its against their faith to condone it?

 

Let's be real here, when it comes to America and businesses not serving gays due to religion, we're talking about Christians.

 

And if we're talking about Christians look no further than the gospel to find out how we should treat supposed sinners. Denying them service is not WJWD.

 

Well, imo being real would be accepting the fact that Christians are not the only faith that discriminate towards gay people.

As a Christian myself, I feel Jesus wouldn't kick gays out of (for example )his bakery. He'd ask them to repent and and change their ways.

[Husker Red Til Dead]

 

 

What religion says we should discriminate against those who are different from us?

Well, the quran doesn't speak well of jews.

But this is a Christian nation right? So why would we need a law to discriminate when Jesus told us to love our neighbors and worry about the beam in our own eye? I can't recall him ever saying not to provide service or deny buisness to a sinner.

 

*edit* I see Moiraine already made the point.

 

Why didn't you just say Christians then, why beat around the bush

[Husker Red Til Dead]

 

 

 

 

 

So say muslim cab owners wont let drunks in their cab ( happens in Minn a lot) or gay print shop owners wont print westboro baptist posters. Should they be forced to provide those services? I don't think so.

 

That court ruling was and is out of their bounds, they say what the law is, not make law. A problem we've had for sometime now.

 

The 1st protects flag burning. It's disrespectful to those that have bled and died in service of that flag. Disrespectful yes, illegal no.

Same with refusing service on religious beliefs. I see it as authoritarian govt overreach when the state tells private business to whom and when they can conduct business.

The state is what created the rules for even having businesses and markets. Without the govt setting up and enforcing those rules, there would be no business. Part of those rules is equal treatment. You have the choice to follow the rules and have a business or not.

 

No, humans have traded and bartered since the beginning of time.

 

And that didn't always work well. For example, your trading partner steals your goods or renegs on an agreement. So laws were made to allow trading without some of those side effects, and to create and enforce these laws a govt or ruling body was needed.

 

And that's before we switched to currency instead of direct barter and trade. How do you have a currency without rules and enforcement of those rules?

 

What exactly those rules should be is a matter of debate. The idea that the govt can't tell private business what the rules are isn't true.

 

But therein lies the problem with lobbyists and special interests.

 

What? I don't understand your point.

 

You mentioned that govt is needed to enforce rules. Sure, but at the same time, the govt is susceptible to influencing deals that benefit those that are making said rules i.e. Crony Capitalism

 

response to the bold: So are you anti free market?

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So say muslim cab owners wont let drunks in their cab ( happens in Minn a lot) or gay print shop owners wont print westboro baptist posters. Should they be forced to provide those services? I don't think so.

 

That court ruling was and is out of their bounds, they say what the law is, not make law. A problem we've had for sometime now.

 

The 1st protects flag burning. It's disrespectful to those that have bled and died in service of that flag. Disrespectful yes, illegal no.

Same with refusing service on religious beliefs. I see it as authoritarian govt overreach when the state tells private business to whom and when they can conduct business.

The state is what created the rules for even having businesses and markets. Without the govt setting up and enforcing those rules, there would be no business. Part of those rules is equal treatment. You have the choice to follow the rules and have a business or not.

 

No, humans have traded and bartered since the beginning of time.

 

And that didn't always work well. For example, your trading partner steals your goods or renegs on an agreement. So laws were made to allow trading without some of those side effects, and to create and enforce these laws a govt or ruling body was needed.

 

And that's before we switched to currency instead of direct barter and trade. How do you have a currency without rules and enforcement of those rules?

 

What exactly those rules should be is a matter of debate. The idea that the govt can't tell private business what the rules are isn't true.

 

But therein lies the problem with lobbyists and special interests.

 

What? I don't understand your point.

 

You mentioned that govt is needed to enforce rules. Sure, but at the same time, the govt is susceptible to influencing deals that benefit those that are making said rules i.e. Crony Capitalism

 

response to the bold: So are you anti free market?

 

Yes, the govt is susceptible to out side influence (and corruption, internal conflicts of interest, etc.). But that doesn't change that the govt needs to set the rules and enforce them.

 

I'm not anti free market, I just don't think a true free market exists. A free market would be great, but as we saw at the end of the 19th century and again over the last 40 years, powerful actors emerge that take control (or partial control) of the market and drive it away from "free" and towards monopolistic practices.

 

Or are you suggesting that markets exist without a govt? Going all the way back to the beginnings of capitalism, John Locke recognized that the state is required to create the markets.