Theresa May to create new internet that would be controlled and regulated by governme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The whole point of living in a free society is that people are entitled to have the view that homosexuality is wrong. They own the business, not you. Therefore it is up to them who to serve, just as it is up to their customers whether to continue buying there.

Property rights are the basis of civil liberties. It is not up to the State to tell business owners who they can or cannot provide cakes for 'weddings' anymore than it is up to the State to monitor and file innocent people's internet activities.

You all advocated more state interference instead of taking the wise option regardless of your own personal opinions on each issue and now you're getting it. Invite the state to legislate on trivial issues and it'll eventually arrive at your door (literally) as it has.

---

1) Cakes and internet privacy are very different.

2) Prove we advocated for that, instead of arguing from nowhere. By that I mean a quote, not some crap counterpoint.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

@hungryfront; @dbgtz; @FlyingJesus;

Nope sorry. It's all about freedom, not freedom when it suits you. The State should be kept away from areas it really doesn't need to be in, like this and the examples I listed. The problem for you all though is that you're fine with having pub landlords lose their business because of your selfish preferences when you don't even own the business and you're fine with seeing Christian bakers get dragged through the courts for politely denying to bake a cake because they disagree with homosexuality. But touch your internet and read your Whatsapp!? Ohhhh the travesty! How we all must feel for you. Your internet is the most important thing ever isn't it. Screw the liberties of everybody else, but don't monitor your boring social media activity. Heaven forbid.

Truth is the public want more security so this time you're all going to be pushed aside like you pushed everyone else aside. There's no point complaining about your loss of civil liberties when you advocated it for others. Suck. It. Up. :)

---

Did you actually read anything I said? I don't even mention social media, nor did I even advocate "freedom" as such. You've just argued against a point that was never made. Honestly how dense can you be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

Did you actually read anything I said? I don't even mention social media, nor did I even advocate "freedom" as such. You've just argued against a point that was never made. Honestly how dense can you be?

---

He does that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

you're fine with having pub landlords lose their business because of your selfish preferences when you don't even own the business and you're fine with seeing Christian bakers get dragged through the courts for politely denying to bake a cake because they disagree with homosexuality

---

Am I

You're fine with the baker's selfish preferences because they suit you though, right Undertaker?

Asking for a friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

1) Cakes and internet privacy are very different.

---

They are to *you* because you place your internet use higher than a religious baker will place their religion. That's the point, that society (thankfully) isn't ordered around your preferences and my preferences. The less interference by the State in people's lives the better. It's when people such as yourself demand the action take action on things you do not *like* but which have no real need for state action that it becomes hypocrisy when you cry about your own civil liberties being infringed upon.

I do not like modern architecture and feel it has a negative impact on people's lives/society. But it's not my place to ban it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

2) Prove we advocated for that, instead of arguing from nowhere. By that I mean a quote, not some crap counterpoint.

---

You agree with me then that Christian bakers should have the *right* (not the same as being in agreement with it) not to bake cakes for gay 'weddings' and that pub landlords should be free to decide their own smoking policy in their own premises? If you do then cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

Did you actually read anything I said? I don't even mention social media, nor did I even advocate "freedom" as such. You've just argued against a point that was never made. Honestly how dense can you be?

---

It's the principle of it. You've justified all that state legislation in the paragraphs you've posted just as someone can justify state legislation in regards to the internet & social media in terms of making us safe from terrorism. All of this legislation may well may us safer as naturally an all-powerful state will be able to take a very active role in society, but it takes away our freedoms and creates an overbearing state. But you can't argue for one and then dismiss the other because you don't like it.

How about on most issues asking ourselves is this really the place of government to do this? We'd be a lot better for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Am I

---

Not sure about you, my inkling/memory is you're actually lax with these things as I am. Let people get on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

You're fine with the baker's selfish preferences because they suit you though, right Undertaker?

Asking for a friend.

---

I have no idea how they suit me, I actually do not care whether a bakery caters for gay 'weddings' or not. If they do then fine, if they don't then fine but from a business POV that's less income. Point is, it isn't up to me, you or the government but the owner.

Being a non-smoker who has never even tried a cigarette I also don't care what a pub or bar decides in regard to smoking policy, but I do care that the right to decide something as meaningless as that is being taken away from a private property owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

They are to *you* because you place your internet use higher than a religious baker will place their religion. That's the point, that society (thankfully) isn't ordered around your preferences and my preferences. The less interference by the State in people's lives the better. It's when people such as yourself demand the action take action on things you do not *like* but which have no real need for state action that it becomes hypocrisy when you cry about your own civil liberties being infringed upon.

I do not like modern architecture and feel it has a negative impact on people's lives/society. But it's not my place to ban it.



You agree with me then that Christian bakers should have the *right* (not the same as being in agreement with it) not to bake cakes for gay 'weddings' and that pub landlords should be free to decide their own smoking policy in their own premises? If you do then cool.



It's the principle of it. You've justified all that state legislation in the paragraphs you've posted just as someone can justify state legislation in regards to the internet & social media in terms of making us safe from terrorism. All of this legislation may well may us safer as naturally an all-powerful state will be able to take a very active role in society, but it takes away our freedoms and creates an overbearing state. But you can't argue for one and then dismiss the other because you don't like it.

How about on most issues asking ourselves is this really the place of government to do this? We'd be a lot better for it.



Not sure about you, my inkling/memory is you're actually lax with these things as I am. Let people get on.



I have no idea how they suit me, I actually do not care whether a bakery caters for gay 'weddings' or not. If they do then fine, if they don't then fine but from a business POV that's less income. Point is, it isn't up to me, you or the government but the owner.

Being a non-smoker who has never even tried a cigarette I also don't care what a pub or bar decides in regard to smoking policy, but I do care that the right to decide something as meaningless as that is being taken away from a private property owner.

---

The fact somebody is gay does not affect the baker. The fact the government's planning to monitor my internet has an effect on me.

Gay marriage is still marriage, I don't see the point of quotation marks.

The internet is real, not a book based loosely around a bloke from a few thousand years ago, written to dictate people's lives.

That's all, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

The fact somebody is gay does not affect the baker. The fact the government's planning to monitor my internet has an effect on me.

---

The fact the cake is being used in a gay 'wedding' does affect the baker if they're religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Gay marriage is still marriage, I don't see the point of quotation marks.

---

Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

The internet is real, not a book based loosely around a bloke from a few thousand years ago, written to dictate people's lives.

That's all, I think.

---

To you it is. Try see it from somebody else's perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The fact the cake is being used in a gay 'wedding' does affect the baker if they're religious.



Hmm.



To you it is. Try see it from somebody else's perspective.

---

Stop using "alternative facts" - the actual facts are that the baker doesn't have to go to a wedding, he's literally baking it. You're the one that said to suck it up and get on with it!

People base their lives far too much around the Bible. It was written in order to tell people how to live, and so the king could get money from church goers.

There's no reason to hate gay people unless you're unable to independently think, which frankly seems to be the case with you.

I'm surprised you're still even allowed on this forum.

I think we're straying off topic now but you should keep in mind that Biblical phrase,

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Disagreement with something doesn't always have to require state action. Exercise some liberalism.