I wondered what you would do with my qualifier when I wrote it. :)
Posted 6 April 2015, 3:23 p.m.
I'm not convinced Obama is bypassing the Constitution by negotiating a treaty, but the human part of me would answer that, yes, I became less and less willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt as his presidency wore on.
Is that because I am inconsistent and subjective in my principles or is it because his presidency proved to be largely incompetent and moved us in what I thought was a foolish direction?
Has Obama done the same for you as Bush did for me? Or has the right wing echo chamber never given him a chance and lied about him every step of the way ("death panels" anyone?), so that now folks like you will believe anything bad about him?
Posted 6 April 2015, 7:22 a.m.
My first thought is no, that should not be illegal.
Posted 6 April 2015, 7:15 a.m.
lol... The gay baker should bake the cake for the Westboro folks, but should make a frosting picture of Cher on it so that they have to eat a gay cake.
Seriously, the Westboro members are who they are by choice, so I think my reasoning still stands. (At least it works for me.) Pot settled? :)
Posted 5 April 2015, 1:17 p.m.
Yep, that's about right. Happy Easter! :)
Posted 5 April 2015, 1:08 p.m.
I've responded to most of your comment above, in my reply to barracuda. As for Iran, if they are "getting everything they want," why is it so iffy as to whether or not the agreement will be approved by the Ayatollah? The answer is that they are not getting everything they want...not by a long shot. By all reports, Iranian negotiators are going to have a tough sell to him.
Posted 5 April 2015, 6:17 a.m.
barracuda, this issue raises a lot of "what if" scenarios, as PearlY has demonstrated. I should probably admit that not all situations are purely black and white with no shades of gray. To the contrary most controversial issues have shades of gray, which is why they are controversial.
I recognize the dueling rights in the abortion debate, for example. Do the pro-choice folks have a legitimate argument about protecting a woman's right to make personal medical decisions without interference from the government? Yes. Do the pro-life folks have a legitimate concern for the rights of the unborn? Yes. Ultimately, though, lines need to be drawn somewhere.
In this case, I suppose I would respond that yes, the gay baker has no obligation to bake a cake for a Westboro Baptist Church function. My reasoning is the principle I described above (the one that PearlY doesn't think is a principle). As a function of their inherent homosexuality, which in more and more states is being recognized as a protected class, gays should have legal protection against discrimination. Someone's choice to join a particular church or to join a labor union, for that matter, may offend a baker, who should not be obligated to bake a pro-union or pro-Westboro cake.
If that baker is offended by gays or blacks or women, though, I would argue that the baker chose the wrong country in which to be a bigot. These groups have experienced too much societal discrimination historically for it to be allowed to continue. If the baker wants to use OUR tax dollars to provide him with police and fire protection, as well as with quality roads to allow customers to reach his business, then he needs to open his business to all people. The line I would draw, as explained above, is that "individuals" who want offensive messages put on cakes or who behave offensively, do not have a "right" to that business' services. Furthermore, while individual business owners have every right to hate and be offended by blacks and gays, their businesses should not have the right to discriminate against them.
Tough question, but that would be my response to it.
Posted 5 April 2015, 6:12 a.m.
The principle is that we should not discriminate against a group of people based on their inherent qualities (i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation). Discriminating against an individual who is rude, for example, is absolutely appropriate.
As for Iran, you write that we will be lifting the sanctions without requiring anything at all. I don't think that is the case. They have come to the table and appear to be on the brink of allowing unprecedented access by inspectors, plus other concessions. Time will tell if it will work. I don't trust Iran either. But this effort is better than the military alternative that we may get to in the end, but I hope not.
Posted 3 April 2015, 9:07 p.m.
NewInWW's reply would have been mine, too (only he worded it better). It is about discriminating against groups of people who are inherently who they are. Any business should feel free to not serve Hitler or his minions.
Also, Iran has been (probably) building nuclear bombs (or attempting it) for some time under the current sanctions. This deal has a shot at slowing that down or even stopping it. I am not okay with Iran having nuclear weapons, which is why I'm glad Obama is pursuing a new approach.
Posted 2 April 2015, 11:02 p.m.
This news article explains the differences pretty well. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/religi...
Posted 1 April 2015, 9:52 p.m.
©2015 Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
Desktop site|Tablet version