Oh, no. I had issue with his claiming it was someone being forced into a contract by the government. They weren't.GORDON wrote:You took issue with the term "at gunpoint."
Gender pill
Re: Gender pill
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Re: Gender pill
I agree. Unfortunately the government is already involved to disallow discrimination. If you want to start a fight to let the baker also refuse to bake cakes for black weddings or bi-racial weddings or muslim wedding or Catholic weddings or ANY sort of wedding for ANY reason (including gay weddings) and I will be right there with you. My problem with this situation is the fight is to make sure ONLY gays can be discriminated against, which is a stance with which I will disagree.Vince wrote:I would have the government not be involved.
Allow discrimination against everyone or no one, but don't expect me to accept that some should be okay to discriminate against while others are not.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Re: Gender pill
How about polygamy weddings? Weddings between father and son? Weddings between minors? I'm sorry I have standards.TPRJones wrote:I agree. Unfortunately the government is already involved to disallow discrimination. If you want to start a fight to let the baker also refuse to bake cakes for black weddings or bi-racial weddings or muslim wedding or Catholic weddings or ANY sort of wedding for ANY reason (including gay weddings) and I will be right there with you. My problem with this situation is the fight is to make sure ONLY gays can be discriminated against, which is a stance with which I will disagree.Vince wrote:I would have the government not be involved.
Allow discrimination against everyone or no one, but don't expect me to accept that some should be okay to discriminate against while others are not.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Re: Gender pill
Actually, because I actually believe in the separation of church and state I think the state should have NO saying in marriage at all since they only injected themselves in them to begin with was to stop mixed marriages.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Re: Gender pill
Then I guess churches can start paying taxes like everyone else and marriage means nothing in individual filings.Vince wrote:Actually, because I actually believe in the separation of church and state I think the state should have NO saying in marriage at all since they only injected themselves in them to begin with was to stop mixed marriages.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Re: Gender pill
That's the real problem. Marriage should have never had government involvement in the first place. It should just be a religious thing (if so desired) accompanying a simple contract to combine assets and provide mutual limited power of attorney (and optionally having various actions cause breech of contract like cheating and whatnot). Then anyone that wants to "get married" can make one of those contracts, and if they want to do a church ceremony (and have an agreeable church) that's a separate and unrelated action. Much simpler.Vince wrote:Actually, because I actually believe in the separation of church and state I think the state should have NO saying in marriage at all since they only injected themselves in them to begin with was to stop mixed marriages.
But I thought you believed in traditional marriages?Weddings between minors?
I have no problems at all with consensual polygamy. I don't care for the father/son thing but as long as no one is requiring me to do it I don't see any excuse to make it illegal for others as long as all parties are consenting. As to minors that's a no-go because minors are incapable of legal consent. I could see making adjustments to the age of majority, but there should be an age below which someone is just too young to consent to legal contracts so they aren't taken advantage of.
Fine, but why should others be required to follow our standards? That's the sort of thinking that leads to government being a buttinsky in the first place. Who should get to be the one to set the standards for everyone else? Why are those people worthy of being set above the rest?I have standards.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Re: Gender pill
Oh well, what's done is done. I will simply afford the homosexuals community the same respect and courtesy that they afford Christians.
Of course, until they stage one of these little sting operations of theirs at a Muslim bakery they will continue to be cowards and frauds.
Of course, until they stage one of these little sting operations of theirs at a Muslim bakery they will continue to be cowards and frauds.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Re: Gender pill
It isn't the same though because the old testament and fundamentalists. ha ha checkmate.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Re: Gender pill
"Yeah, but Christians"GORDON wrote:It isn't the same though because the old testament and fundamentalists. ha ha checkmate.
amirite?
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Re: Gender pill
Despite what you might think because I think you have been mixing up "who said what" in other threads, I'm mostly in agreement with you while still maintaining skepticism.society has set up rules that mean those choices have consequences.
That being said, I would only object strongly to this statement.
Society hasn't set up rules. Society has had rules forced upon it.
"Believe this or pretend to and everything will be fine. If you show any sort of differing opinion we'll do everything in our power to ruin your life."
I don't agree with that strategy for numerous reasons, and I certainly don't understand how people who are fighting for freedom can be so blatant about taking other people's freedoms and pretend it's not bad.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Re: Gender pill
But who set up that rule in quotes there if not society? Society is capable of making some shitty rules. See the majority of society's rules both past and present for examples.Society hasn't set up rules. Society has had rules forced upon it.
"Believe this or pretend to and everything will be fine. If you show any sort of differing opinion we'll do everything in our power to ruin your life."
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Re: Gender pill
I agree, but it doesn't make it right or even acceptable.TPRJones wrote:But who set up that rule in quotes there if not society? Society is capable of making some shitty rules. See the majority of society's rules both past and present for examples.Society hasn't set up rules. Society has had rules forced upon it.
"Believe this or pretend to and everything will be fine. If you show any sort of differing opinion we'll do everything in our power to ruin your life."
There are times when it's ok to force people to do something against their will. Making a baker bake a cake for a wedding his religious beliefs condemn doesn't seem to be that time, imho.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Re: Gender pill
Why are you so full of hate? You must be a christian with your old testament.Leisher wrote:es when it's ok to force people to do something against their will. Making a baker bake a cake for a wedding his religious beliefs condemn doesn't seem to be that time, imho.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Re: Gender pill
I agree completely. I have no problem letting the baker turn them away. But only if the baker can turn away ANYONE for any reason, be it religion or race or hair color or because they don't want to serve cripples. And that's not where we are. Where we are is some people are trying to have it be okay to discriminate selectively which I will not condone.There are times when it's ok to force people to do something against their will. Making a baker bake a cake for a wedding his religious beliefs condemn doesn't seem to be that time, imho.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Re: Gender pill
How very Christian of you. I think we all recall the time Jesus said, "Do unto others as they do unto you."I will simply afford the homosexuals community the same respect and courtesy that they afford Christians.
Sounds like more than a couple religions I can think of.Believe this or pretend to and everything will be fine. If you show any sort of differing opinion we'll do everything in our power to ruin your life.
Perhaps he shouldn't put himself in a spot where the law is going to come into conflict with his faith. Because when that does happen, he's going to have to make a choice which one matters more. You do not have 100% freedom to operate a biz anyway you want, e.g. you cannot refuse service based on race. That's some shit he should have reconciled himself with beforehand.Making a baker bake a cake for a wedding his religious beliefs condemn doesn't seem to be that time, imho.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Re: Gender pill
We discriminate as a society very selectively on a day to day basis, it's just that the SJWs don't give a fuck OR the rest of society has made it clear they won't let them bully us in those areas.TPRJones wrote:I agree completely. I have no problem letting the baker turn them away. But only if the baker can turn away ANYONE for any reason, be it religion or race or hair color or because they don't want to serve cripples. And that's not where we are. Where we are is some people are trying to have it be okay to discriminate selectively which I will not condone.There are times when it's ok to force people to do something against their will. Making a baker bake a cake for a wedding his religious beliefs condemn doesn't seem to be that time, imho.
You know my "public polls are lies" belief? I feel this is an area where it'd really apply. I'll bet the majority of people, if polled privately, would admit that the baker shouldn't lose their business because they didn't want to bake that cake. Would the majority also say they shouldn't be forced to make the cake? Possibly.
Let's say someone went in there and asked for a cake to be made celebrating 9/11. They want the planes crashing and bodies falling, etc. Would the bakers be condemned by the SJWs for refusing to make that cake? Of course not because if the SJWs tried THEY'D be the ones shamed and bullied. Yet if we were looking at it strictly from a logical view, it's the exact same scenario except instead of a gay wedding, the theme of the cake would be the death of innocents.
Am I defending being selective in our discrimination? No, nor am I defending discrimination. However, as with all issues, I think there's some gray area.
By the way, it's funny that you draw the line at being selective in our discrimination because I believe that's exactly how SJWs pick their battles. There is so much injustice that goes ignored yet nobody's doing anything about it because it doesn't sell papers or get clicks.
The whole thing is frustrating as hell, and to go back to the baker, if I was the gay couple I probably would have been offended, but I would have taken my business elsewhere. Making a federal case about it does what exactly? Does it really further their cause or does it simply create more underground hatred?
And that's wrong, so why would it be ok for the SJWs to do?Sounds like more than a couple religions I can think of.
EXACTLY! If you don't agree with whatever the SJW warriors think you should agree with whenever they decide you should agree with it then you shouldn't own a business!Perhaps he shouldn't put himself in a spot where the law is going to come into conflict with his faith. Because when that does happen, he's going to have to make a choice which one matters more. You do not have 100% freedom to operate a biz anyway you want, e.g. you cannot refuse service based on race. That's some shit he should have reconciled himself with beforehand.
Let freedom ring!
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Re: Gender pill
I wouldn't say that's equivalent to a wedding, most of which have a body count of exactly two. Additionally, weddings are a fairly common thing and some type of similar ceremony exists in virtually every society in the world. The objection would be the content of the cake itself and perhaps the celebration in general. It's the last bit which is important. 9-11 is one example of a terrorist event. If you condemn pastry recreations of it, fine. But you'd best be consistent and reject all terrorist-related cakes (this analogy is is getting somewhat absurd now, but oh well). So turning down the 9-11 cake but making one for Munich '72 or Columbine would be inconsistent.Let's say someone went in there and asked for a cake to be made celebrating 9/11.
No, it's not. If you had a vendor that objected to weddings in general, I'd give him a pass on dealing with gay ones and straight ones the same way I'd give that same pass to vendors that don't like supporting terrorist baked goods. Problem is that some owners want to use one standard for weddings which meet their criteria for "acceptable gender ratios in a marriage" and disregard the others.Yet if we were looking at it strictly from a logical view, it's the exact same scenario except instead of a gay wedding, the theme of the cake would be the death of innocents.
No, if you can't or don't read the fucking bylaws and state ordinances by which you are supposed to operate, you shouldn't own a biz. In which case, this...EXACTLY! If you don't agree with whatever the SJW warriors think you should agree with whenever they decide you should agree with it then you shouldn't own a business!
... is grounds to lose your biz. Not following the law does that.I'll bet the majority of people, if polled privately, would admit that the baker shouldn't lose their business because they didn't want to bake that cake.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Re: Gender pill
I guess the SJWs are the ones that made the Equal Protection clause and the Civil Rights Acts. They've been around quite a bit longer than I thought.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Re: Gender pill
So, in your opinion, there's gray area, and personal judgement has to come into play?Malcolm wrote:I wouldn't say that's equivalent to a wedding, most of which have a body count of exactly two.Let's say someone went in there and asked for a cake to be made celebrating 9/11.
Ok, whose judgement? I vote TPRs. He's a pretty good guy.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Re: Gender pill
Actually, almost every time it's voted on gay marriage loses. Men in robes are deciding this for us, to the extent that they overrode state constitutions. You can agree with the court, but don't pretend like this was democracy in action. Or even Republicanism.TPRJones wrote:But who set up that rule in quotes there if not society? Society is capable of making some shitty rules. See the majority of society's rules both past and present for examples.Society hasn't set up rules. Society has had rules forced upon it.
"Believe this or pretend to and everything will be fine. If you show any sort of differing opinion we'll do everything in our power to ruin your life."
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren