Hey Democrats, you want wage increases? How about applying the principles of free market economics.

but thats the thing its not who they are its what they choose to do and then share the details.

There is a distinction. Most people can't really change their race... people can choose to share or not to share their sexual preferences. When and if they really discover a gay gene... I will amend this statement to those who have the gay gene.

and then on top of that...

in the America I would prefer to live in... people can choose to be gay and people can choose who they make cakes for. If I were a baker I would have no problem making cake for gay people. I would just sell the little figurines separately if I had a problem placing the figurines. But that is me and that would be my choice. If someone else makes another choice... I say leave them the hell alone or tell your friends not to do business with them.

Don' t use the govt to mess with them.
Just for the sake of argument, Jem. Let's say every one can choose there sexual preference and that choice has nothing to do with DNA, "would that be wrong in your opinion?" I guess my question is basically the same as asking whether you think it is wrong for a person to identify with a sex opposite to their biological sex, when there is no known gene causing them to do this.

Obviously I am not asking about gay people here, but transgender.

Let me assume you think it is wrong. Then my next question is, "Because you think it is wrong for a transgender person to identify with the opposite biological sex, would you then want, a transgender person in a dress and high heels and long hair and with a female voice, and appearing to at least a casual observer to be a female, to use the mens' restroom?
 
That much is clear. However it is the case society at large and the law do not agree with the way you see things.
Noticeable how young people and recent generations generally seem far more enlightened and relaxed about gender than many older dinosaurs. But then everyone knows what happened to the dinosaurs.

Stu, I'm not hung up on the morality. It's not my role to tell other people how to live their lives, but I do resent others forcing their beliefs, progressive or otherwise, on me. We have a situation now where the formerly oppressed, in this case gays, are the new oppressors.

The part that interests me is the constitutional law aspect. Even before the federal judiciary became so politicized, judges struggled with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. There are numerous cases dealing with disputes over whether certain conduct could be banned by government or was it a protected religious exercise. These bakery and photography cases are among the few I can recall, other than forcing medical treatment or providing contraceptives or abortion services, where the government was not trying to ban a practice but was insisting that people do something they objected to on religious grounds.

It does seem to me that the bar should be higher for forcing people to do something. At the same time, these marriage cases generally are not compelling. Baking a cake or taking pictures does not involve violating the Ten Commandments, and any facilitation of the gay marriage seems remote. It's not like coercing a doctor to perform an abortion, for example.

Gay marriage is an issue that should have been handled state by state through legislation. The Supreme Court created loads of problems by inventing a bogus constitutional right to it based on nothing more substantial than its own edict.
 
I take your point on the morality and how you are referring to people being affected under law.
I'd just comment it's surely a very tortured argument indeed that says stopping oppression forces an oppressor to be oppressed.

Principle being, to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality is wrong.
Religious excercise, beliefs or whatever don't alter that and should not be exempt for use by those who would oppress by them.

If some people want to be excused from the principle though, they can actually have it both ways. To end discrimination but discriminate at the same time, all they need do is hate everyone.
 
ATT to begin offering 5 dollar internet access to families where at least one person is on food stamps.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/22/technology/access-from-att-digital-divide/

Nationwide, this is almost twenty percent of american families.
ATT agreed to do this as a part of a deal with the FCC to allow them to merge or aquire directv.

Iow, the gov't required ATT to hand out gov't welfare in order to do the directv deal.
Sure. More freebies for the underclass. Create a huge dependent welfare class and they'll vote Democrat/Free Shit forever. Good political tactic. Traitors to the country. But hey, can't win em all.
 
its odd how lefties and liberals throughout the years attempt to deny their own beliefs.
We all want more efficient govt. I would like the Federal govt much smaller, far more efficient and for us to get some of our rights back.

You argued for Obamacare but they acted like it could be better.... then for years you liked to hide the real culprit and called it obomneycare.

You supported the IRS targeting conservatives probably a dozen times when the questions were asked by AAA or myself. Now you act like you don't understand.

Pretty soon you will deny you defend the Private Federal Reserve even though you recently admitted the regional fed banks were owned shareholders were the govt. .


But I'm NOT advocating for more government control, nor less. I have said more than once that I believe we shouldn't think in terms of how big or small our government is but how efficient and useful it is. I have no idea what you mean when you say "letting the IRS target people".

Jem, sometimes I get the idea you don't really read anything I post before launching a response. If you do read my posts, then you don't understand them, which I admit is likely my fault.
 
Thanks for trying to read it anyway. If you do a search on Walras, general equilibrium, you're bound to turn up a Wiki article. It's probably not worth your time though. The bottom line is no true "Free Market" can exist for long other than on perhaps a small scale locally. So when someone says "whatever happened to Free Markets?", the answer is "They never existed in the first place."

And it would be taking a big risk to depend on me to get us out of a jam in South Central L.A. without money or other resources other than brain work. This reminds me of a true story however, where operating my brain on auto pilot did the trick to get me out of a threatening situation. Late at night walking home on a dark street, as I neared my driveway gate, I became aware that someone was following me. A large person suddenly appeared to my left and said "Hey dude" (Actually I thought they said something else, but later I realized that is what they had said.) I turned toward them, and when I realized that I did not recognize this person I kept on walking. Then suddenly a much shorter person who looked to be perhaps late Junior high or Early High School Age appeared next to me on my right and was matching my steps. All of a sudden this smaller person, when I was maybe only ten feet from my driveway, swung his fist at my head hitting me squarely on the nose. Without thinking and going on instinct, I stopped dead in my tracks, looked down at the individual that had just socked me and said, rather emphatically and sternly, as a school teacher might in admonishing a child, "What is the matter with you!" I suppose this is not at all the reaction he was expecting. I then turned and walked directly to my driveway gate. I did not quicken my pace or run. At my gate I looked back to see if my assailant was still there. He was not, and neither was his large buddy. They had both faded into the night. I suppose this was their unsuccessful version of the "knockout game." I did get a bloody nose out of the encounter. Had I had anytime to think I would have reacted differently and possibly with far worse results..

When a businessman uses the term "free enterprise" he may be using it as a substitute term for laissez faire, just as he may substitute the term "free markets" for laissez faire, meaning virtually the same thing in each case, i.e., the operation of a business without interference from government. But to the lay public the term "free enterprise" can mean something quite different, namely the freedom to enter a market and compete on level terms with other market participants. This duel meaning of "free enterprise" has been the source of much unnecessary disagreement in discussions.
COOL STORY! I probably would have fought the both of them and made things worse. You did well for that situation! My biggest concern of the story...they know where you live...we don't really know their "long term motive"...BE CAREFUL! Thanks for elaborating further on free markets.
 
Back
Top