1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

An introspect of two countries

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by Andy, Jun 24, 2018.

  1. Andy

    Andy ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    In one country, a bakery owner refused to make a cake for a gay couple based on religious beliefs, they were vilified by Liberals in the press and social media, and practically bankrupted due to court costs of being sued which took their case all the way to the supreme court and were eventually vindicated as actually having the right to say "no", but at a cost.



    In another country, a restaurant owner proudly kicked out a high-profiled employee of the US Govt (and their large party) because of who they worked for and their political affiliation.
    The restaurant owner was high-fived in the press and social media, and figuratively carried around on the collective shoulders of Liberals everywhere as conquering heroes.

    The Govt employee and their party simply left and ate somewhere else with little fanfare.

    It will only be a matter of time before said restaurant plays the victim card here when they lose money based on their decision to do the same thing the bakery in the other country did, and still not understand how actions like this have consequences.
     
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    These are two different things to me with some similarities.

    As much as people like it or hate it, this country was founded on freedom FOR religion. Meaning that if homosexuality is a sin AND the belief is that marriage is between a male and female only, baking a cake for a gay couple is against every fiber of their core religion. This is now backed by Supreme Court.

    The other instance is based on political ideology. Not backed by anything except little hissy bitch fits.

    Thankfully, we live in a free market society with an abundance of choices where we can patronize the businesses. If someone doesn't want to bake a cake? There are many bakeries who would love nothing but take that spot. Same for Red Hen bullshit.
     
    Allene likes this.
  3. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    The whole basis of Liberalism is government control and frequent use of the associated force.

    Global climate change? Government control of the economy to affect pollution output.
    Healthcare? Government control of the insurance agencies (now), make healthcare workers government employees (undergoing).
    Schools? Total government control via monopoly, K-16 (including college).
    LGBT? Government control of personal pronouns, bathrooms, etc.

    The list goes on and on...
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    There was no government involved in ousting Huckabee from Red Hen. Not sure where you are going with that logic.
     
    Allene likes this.
  5. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Mark, the reach of liberals into some of the areas you mention is because the capitalistic forces have or are failing the country and its people.

    Climate change is real. Most of the opposition has to do with cost and the hit to the bottom line. I don't think we can beat the worst effects while other countries ignore it. But the bottom line thinking will not do us or the planet any good.

    Healthcare should be a universal right. Again the capitalistic approach is failing us. The cost of medical care, the cost of medicine is driven by corporate greed. Corporations are now even buying medical practices and then directing care giver what to treat and how to treat.

    I don't like the thought of Washington controlling education but what do you recommend when school boards and, indeed, states are wanting to teach from religious teachings rather than science?
     
  6. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    The "Incident at Red Hen" proves my overall point, which is that a business must have the right to refuse service to any patron at any time. Sarah did the adult thing and left without a scene.

    Climate change is real. The climate of this planet is always in flux. The question really is, "is man's economy a significant contributing factor one way or the other?" If the answer is "yes," then answer is simple. Kill half the humans on the planet, then sterilize 75% of the remaining females. That should keep our population (and environmental impact) down for a couple centuries.

    Healthcare is expensive in the US because of three reasons: 1) The machines and medicines we use to treat people are expensive to R&D, build, maintain and run. 2) The FDA provides a bureaucratic burden of such significance that it costs millions of dollars to satisfy the FDA to earn approval. It is probably approaching $1 Billion to bring a single medication to market. 3) The insurance companies have disconnected the patient from the price of everything.

    Your Dr's office probably has 3-5 people just to fill out insurance paperwork. One for UHC, one for BCBS, etc. Each insurance company pays different for every procedure. The doctors don't even know what they charge any more, because it depends on the insurance company and the individual's plan.

    We should have Dr's post prices like McDonald's, on a board that's easy to see when you walk in. You get the service, you pay, you send the bill off to your insurance company and they reimburse you. That way the Dr's office has no dealings with the insurance company. You decide based on price and quality which Dr. to go to. Same with drugs, you pay up front, you get reimbursed.

    If we do that, market forces will drive down prices significantly.

    For education today, we start "teaching to the test" from 1st grade. In 1776, over half of the teaching a child received was of a moral nature. In Japan, there is no testing until the 3rd grade because social interaction skills are taught K-2. We need a voucher system, just like food stamps, so a parent can send their child to the school of the parents' choice. Schools need to be locally controlled so the parents have the most say. The States should set a minimum qualification standard and there should be ZERO Federal oversight.

    Schools should have the ability to teach religious teachings, science teachings or whatever else. The parents should have the choice to send their children to the school that fits their ideals and values. As long as the child can pass the required knowledge and skills (change a car tire, balance a budget, sew a button onto a shirt, solve math problems, construct a letter with proper spelling and grammar, express a basic understanding of history and more) they get a GED. I don't want a "pump and dump" where they memorize this answer for this question without the knowledge of the why behind it then they forget it for the rest of their lives.

    More to say, but I have to go to work.
     
  7. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    You're right. Like I said, a business should have the ability to refuse service at any time for any reason. But when the government gets involved to force a baker to produce a product he doesn't want to, then it's also okay?
     
  8. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Really Shiny? "Rights" like those (right to healthcare, affordable housing, food, etc.) come from the largess of government, nowhere else. The government has to either purchase or subsidize those services from doctors and other healthcare professionals. As a last resort, they can force doctors to provide those services at the point of a gun. It is literally the worst way to spend money. As Milton Friedman says, "The people in government spending other people's money on other people care neither about the cost or quality of what that money gets."

    What would you do if there were no doctors? Where is your "right" then? The same goes for electricians, carpenters, brick layers and all the other skilled tradesman who work together to build a house. How can you have affordable housing, or housing at all if there are no skilled tradesmen to build your house?

    Big government is the friend of big corporations. How is that? Because big corporations can purchase influence with the government, through campaign donations or any of the other myriad ways to influence all of the government decision makers. That influence can be "shaped" to protect the Big Corp from competition from rivals and startups.

    Take a look at Zuckerberg's recent visit to Capitol Hill. Zuckerberg welcomes intrusive government regulations. Facebook can afford the army of lawyers to safely navigate the oversight and various regulations necessary to prosper. But what about the Zuckerberg of 2004, when Facebook started? Let's say we teleported a copy of the 2004 Zuckerberg to the current time, facing the current Facebook. if the 2004 Zuckerberg wanted to start a rival to today's Facebook, he couldn't do it. He couldn't even start because he can't afford the lawyers to make sure he's doing it the government way. If he can't start, he can't grow. If he can't grow, he can't compete. It's as simple as that.
     
  9. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Reading your anti-government rant gave me absolutely no reason to think that all citizens don't deserve medical care. Maybe you can tell me who does not?
     
  10. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Deserve? Absolutely! Right? No. At least not in the context of our current culture, laws, and constitution. Is there a the opening there to make changes that would make it a right? Yes. Is there the collective motive from the various entities to do that in the USA. No.

    That's where we are at now. If I had to bet I would bet that's the way it stays.
     
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    The government consists for 3 separate branches for the sole reason of checking each other branch. We have laws, as society changes, the laws are challenged. In this case, it ruled for the business citing, and the emphasis here is very important as it is in the ruling: By a vote of 7-2, the justices ruled that proceedings before the Colorado administrative agency that considered the baker’s case were unfairly tainted by hostility to religion.
    This wasn't a divided court eking out a partisan stance.
     
  12. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Everyone deserves medical care. I don't think it should be provided, whole or in part, by government. Healthcare, student loans, education, every time the government has "helped," it has gotten worse.

    Reagan's Nine Scariest Words in the English Language: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
     
  13. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    To tell you the truth, it shouldn't have been a law in the first place.

    I can't say this any better than Milton can:
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page