Is there a new age store in your area? They often sell jewelry.

The Steerswoman series by Rosemary Kirstein, though sadly she never finished it.

It has to do with going alt-right. Elle Reeve wrote a book about it. If you prefer video, she did an interview with Adam Conover.

9/11: One Day in America

Here’s a great Ted talk from a guy who got pulled into the neo-nazis and got out.

This is the premise of Johnny Got His Gun, an anti-war novel by Dalton Trumbo.

Not a logical fallacy in itself, but related: the principle of charity

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker’s statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

People typically do the opposite, assuming the worst possible interpretation of others’ arguments. I wish this principle was taught in schools.

I’ve gotten some of my best house cleaning done while angry.

Here you go.

I like that you responded to the wrong post and I know exactly which post you meant to reply to.

You’re right, apparently I need my eyes checked.

It’s the upside down exclamation mark that throws me.i can barely find the regular exclamation mark on my new phone.

I had read posts turned off

Grammatically

You have taken my comments and turned them into an extreme that they do not support.

Saying individual retailers should have the right not to sell a topper is not the same as saying no retailers should sell toppers.

Saying an individual service provider should not have to participate in an activity is not remotely saying anyone should have to hide themselves from public.

If the bakery sells pink cakes, by the actual argument I made, a boy should be able to buy the cake the same as any other customer. I do not appreciate you attributing to me arguments that not only did I not make, but are the exact opposite of what I said.

Edit: stray letter.

I’m not talking about what the law allows. I’m talking about what I think the law should allow. Laws are written by people after discussing what they think should be allowed, they are not immutable facts of nature.

As you can see in my other responses below, I think the line should be drawn between businesses being required to provide the same products and services to everyone, but not requiring the provider to engage in participatory behavior.

I’m not sure if you’re using the general “you” or the specific “you” so I just want to clarify that I am bisexual and not at all repulsed by LGBT people.

You make a good argument in your last paragraph. Photography is a more difficult situation to judge than the cake thing, but I feel like the photographer is often such an integral part of the wedding, that it’s more of a participatory service, and my argument is about not making people participate in something they find unsavory.

I didnt equate hateful opinions to being born different. In my example, the business is not allowed to discriminate against gay people by denying them the same products and services that they provide to straight people, anymore than they could discriminate against people of color by denying them the same products and services they provide to white people. My scenario is about forcing businesses to actively participate in * behaviors* they find deplorable.

I would also say if the bakery won’t put a gay topper on a cake, they can’t put a specifically straight topper on either.

No one should be forced to participate in something they disagree with. Whenever I’m trying to figure out if denial of service is reasonable, I imagine it with nazis. For example wedding cakes. If a gay couple goes to a bakery for a wedding cake, they should absolutely be able to purchase a standard wedding cake, and it’s none of the baker’s business what they use it for. But the baker should not be forced to decorate in a specifically gay way (like a topper with a pair of men). If a gross couple wants to have a nazi wedding, they should absolutely be able to purchase a standard wedding cake, and it’s none of the baker’s business what they use it for. But the baker should not be forced to pipe a swastika on it.

If it’s reasonable for a photographer to feel uncomfortable working a nazi wedding, it’s reasonable for one to feel uncomfortable working a gay wedding.

Obviously there’s an enormous difference between being gay and being a nazi. I’m not equating those things. I’m equating the feeling of repulsion and discomfort of the one providing the service.

Thanks for the heads up.