Comicsfan222: The purpose of editorial cartoons, like that of religion and journalism as a whole, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. That, as humans, we fail, is irrelevant. Cartoons, editorial and humor, use distortion of emphasis to highlight the problems. As such, it is hardly making the situation worse.
The whole purpose of the law is to give parties redress in the courts.
Actually, according to its promoters, the purpose of this particular law was to allow Christian supremacists to discriminate against LGBT folks. That’s why so many on the Christian right are complaining loudly that the partial fix that was just passed in Indiana has undermined their ability to do so.
I’m an atheist, not a Christian, and I’m not a Supremacist.
I didn’t say you were one thing or another. I said that the Indiana law was promoted by Christian supremacists. You are simply apparently along for the ride.
The difference between us is I believe in the First Amendment, and you don’t.
Well, that’s an interesting yet both baseless and wrongheaded little grenade to toss. I am, in fact, a very firm believer in the First Amendment. I just do not believe that it gives you or me or anyone else the right to discriminate against a whole class of people. It’s not like the First Amendment gives people unlimited rights in the name of religion. Otherwise, it’s quite possible that legal human sacrifice would be a thing. And if you were to say that’s ridiculous (which I hope you would), then you already acknowledge that there are lines that must be drawn limiting the extent to which one person’s freedom of religion impinges on another person’s rights. The difference between us, therefore, is more about where we would draw that line.
If you come into my bakery and I deny you a muffin, that is discrimination. If you want me to bake a specific cake for you, it is my right to refuse.
Actually, no, you don’t get to make that kind of distinction, at least not when you deny a whole class of people a specific cake. If someone threw a brick through your window and is now demanding you bake them a cake and you refuse, then fine.
But when you bake wedding cakes as a regular part of your business and you come out and say you cannot, will not bake a wedding cake for a multiracial wedding because it is a multiracial wedding, you are indeed engaging in discrimination. If you refuse to make a wedding cake because it is for a wedding between two Korean Americans, that is also discrimination. Similarly, refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding because it is a same-sex wedding, then you are indeed engaging in discrimination.
hippogriff about 9 years ago
Comicsfan222: The purpose of editorial cartoons, like that of religion and journalism as a whole, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. That, as humans, we fail, is irrelevant. Cartoons, editorial and humor, use distortion of emphasis to highlight the problems. As such, it is hardly making the situation worse.
reynard61 about 9 years ago
Known hence as “Pence the Dense”…
agrestic about 9 years ago
The whole purpose of the law is to give parties redress in the courts.
Actually, according to its promoters, the purpose of this particular law was to allow Christian supremacists to discriminate against LGBT folks. That’s why so many on the Christian right are complaining loudly that the partial fix that was just passed in Indiana has undermined their ability to do so.
agrestic about 9 years ago
I’m an atheist, not a Christian, and I’m not a Supremacist.
I didn’t say you were one thing or another. I said that the Indiana law was promoted by Christian supremacists. You are simply apparently along for the ride.
The difference between us is I believe in the First Amendment, and you don’t.
Well, that’s an interesting yet both baseless and wrongheaded little grenade to toss. I am, in fact, a very firm believer in the First Amendment. I just do not believe that it gives you or me or anyone else the right to discriminate against a whole class of people. It’s not like the First Amendment gives people unlimited rights in the name of religion. Otherwise, it’s quite possible that legal human sacrifice would be a thing. And if you were to say that’s ridiculous (which I hope you would), then you already acknowledge that there are lines that must be drawn limiting the extent to which one person’s freedom of religion impinges on another person’s rights. The difference between us, therefore, is more about where we would draw that line.
If you come into my bakery and I deny you a muffin, that is discrimination. If you want me to bake a specific cake for you, it is my right to refuse.
Actually, no, you don’t get to make that kind of distinction, at least not when you deny a whole class of people a specific cake. If someone threw a brick through your window and is now demanding you bake them a cake and you refuse, then fine.
But when you bake wedding cakes as a regular part of your business and you come out and say you cannot, will not bake a wedding cake for a multiracial wedding because it is a multiracial wedding, you are indeed engaging in discrimination. If you refuse to make a wedding cake because it is for a wedding between two Korean Americans, that is also discrimination. Similarly, refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding because it is a same-sex wedding, then you are indeed engaging in discrimination.
wakelykwade over 3 years ago
no plus either. yet we are gonna love who we love