A moment. I left the door open and a cat came in.
Mind your tail, cat.
Talked about the danger of honoring tradition sans scrutiny with gen...
And film with rex...
A little law in foundation with Angel...
On the subject of a four week high school romance leading to a proposal...
Had the beginning of a conversation with Trad...
And...
But...
Tomorrow? Back to it, I suppose. :idunno:
Mind your tail, cat.
The Sunday Night Gazette
Talked about the danger of honoring tradition sans scrutiny with gen...
Right. Prior to a government funded and owned infrastructure that provided a great deal of the potential for profitability that was the case.Prior to the 1900s, it was well known that a privately owned business was a private business, regardless of whether it sold goods or services to others.
Yep. And they did that, especially to black people and Jews. See, history/tradition isn't necessarily a precedent worth investing in. We once allowed workers, even children to work in unsafe environments too.The private owners of the businesses had the common law right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, the same as they had the common law right to provide service to anyone for any reason.
And film with rex...
Ah, I thought Ronin was Japanese for "reasons not to watch this movie"...though the one was sufficient. lain:47 Ronin: Neo spends several hours impressing us with his Japaneseiness.
A little law in foundation with Angel...
I think the Constitution is a balancing act between individual liberty and the rights of others. You have the right to think as you will, but not to act without regard for the rights of others.Then you do not agree with constitution on freedom of religion, you think freedom of religion means freedom so long as someone else doesnt like it or claims offense.
That's about as Constitutional as it gets, so to speak.
On the subject of a four week high school romance leading to a proposal...
Before or after the boarding school transfer? lain:Good idea or bad? They seem to think they are ready, what would you say if you were the boy's parents? What if you were the girls parents?
Had the beginning of a conversation with Trad...
A man walks into a gun store to buy a gun for hunting and says so.Case to consider:
1. Woman A walks into a mom and pop store to buy metal clotheshangers in order to hang up her clothes, and asserts to the cashier that this is her purpose.
2. Woman B walks into a mom and pop store to buy metal clotheshangers in order to perform an abortion on herself, and asserts to the cashier that this is her purpose.
Should the cashier treat woman A and B differently? Should he withhold the sale in either case?
If you appeal to the human law for either case, I won't be impressed by your answer. :idunno:
Another man walks in behind him and states, "I need a gun that's good for killing a lot of people in a hurry, because that's why I'm buying it. And I'm in a hurry."
Should the cashier treat the first man and second man differently? Should he withhold the sale in either case?
If you appeal to else but logic for either case, I won't be impressed by your answer.
And...
Why? Because you say it's so. That's neither good enough nor an argument. Both are things that may well define the persons publicly and privately. Neither are things that shame the people who want the cakes, though many will find either worthy of shame and scorn.In this case "Republican" is accidental to the end for which the cake is being produced, in the sense that "Republican" has no bearing on the event which is taking place: the marriage.
And here you come very close to understanding. The cake isn't a celebration of Republicanism, nor is it a statement cake for homosexuality. It's a wedding cake and both parties want one.However, it would be relevent in the event that the cake were being produced for a specifically Republican function: for example, to throw a party celebrating the victory of a Republican presidential candidate.
Congratulations.
But...
If it's not obvious to you, then you clearly should spend more time thinking about it.
Or you might try on the thought that followed and address it. What's obvious to me is that you're trying to justify the imposition of a purely religious value in a secular compact without the commiserate argument necessary.
No thanks. I prefer to live in a society where I'm free to exercise my own conscience and answer to God in matters that don't infringe upon my neighbor's right.
Tomorrow? Back to it, I suppose. :idunno: