Welcome to Thunderdome

Ah yes, the social contracts.

If you want the benefits of a society, then yes. The bakers are free to go found and defend their own country where any shopkeep may refuse service if their customer doesn't fuck the proper bodily orifice.

Vince wrote:If the bakers were working for Walmart, I'd agree. These bakers are self employed/ Jihad Jane is more than welcome to start her own airline where she doesn't serve alcohol.

Fair enough on the starting her own airline that doesn't serve alcohol to anyone; that's a legit stance and ruins the analogy. But those bakers aren't just self-employed, they are owners of a public-serving business and they aren't refusing to sell ANY wedding cakes on principle, they are ONLY refusing to sell them to them gays.

Let me ask you this: would it be okay for them to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because they believe that is a sin? How about refusing to sell one to someone getting their second marriage because that is a sin? Can you name any other cases where it would be okay for them to refuse to sell a couple a wedding cake based on their religious beliefs or is it only homosexuals that are to be singled out?

If you think they should be able to refuse to sell a wedding cake to anyone for any reason then I applaud your consistency and actually sort of agree with you (I'm torn on the issue in the general case for various reasons). However if you think it should only apply to refusing homosexuals then that is where all my disagreement comes from because that would be a bigoted stance.

Malcolm wrote:If you want the benefits of a society, then yes. The bakers are free to go found and defend their own country where any shopkeep may refuse service if their customer doesn't fuck the proper bodily orifice.

I mean, I guess they could also take control of all 3 branches of the US gov't and adjust the law accordingly.

TPRJones wrote:Let me ask you this: would it be okay for them to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because they believe that is a sin? How about refusing to sell one to someone getting their second marriage because that is a sin?

I think those things should not be federal crimes. I also think it would be a dumb business move, as someone more tolerant is going to swoop in and take their bidness.

GORDON wrote:

TPRJones wrote:Let me ask you this: would it be okay for them to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because they believe that is a sin? How about refusing to sell one to someone getting their second marriage because that is a sin?

I think those things should not be federal crimes. I also think it would be a dumb business move, as someone more tolerant is going to swoop in and take their bidness.

Maybe and eventually.

As I say, my stance on the general case is complicated. On the one hand I hate government intervention and would prefer that anyone can refuse service to anyone else for any reason. On the other hand without such protections we'd still have Jim Crow situations in many places, especially in small towns where there are no other businesses to step in and take that business. So in the general case I straddle that fence.

It's only the fact that such recent "religious freedom" laws have been specifically targeted to a single class of people (homosexuals) that I find them abominable. They should specifically mention that race, gender, age, religion, nationality, etc etc are also allowed for discrimination as well or they should not exist at all.

I think those things should not be federal crimes.

They are not and never have been. Those bakers aren't in prison. They were never charged with any crime. Instead it is a federal law that indicates they will lose should they try to discriminate and get taken to civil court over it.

Kim Davis was not jailed for breaking some sort of discrimination law. She was jailed for contempt of court.

TPRJones wrote:

Vince wrote:If the bakers were working for Walmart, I'd agree. These bakers are self employed/ Jihad Jane is more than welcome to start her own airline where she doesn't serve alcohol.

Fair enough on the starting her own airline that doesn't serve alcohol to anyone; that's a legit stance and ruins the analogy. But those bakers aren't just self-employed, they are owners of a public-serving business and they aren't refusing to sell ANY wedding cakes on principle, they are ONLY refusing to sell them to them gays.

Let me ask you this: would it be okay for them to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because they believe that is a sin? How about refusing to sell one to someone getting their second marriage because that is a sin? Can you name any other cases where it would be okay for them to refuse to sell a couple a wedding cake based on their religious beliefs or is it only homosexuals that are to be singled out?

If you think they should be able to refuse to sell a wedding cake to anyone for any reason then I applaud your consistency and actually sort of agree with you (I'm torn on the issue in the general case for various reasons). However if you think it should only apply to refusing homosexuals then that is where all my disagreement comes from because that would be a bigoted stance.

I wouldn't argue with any of those if they are an actual religious doctrine of their faith. I could easily see a catholic baker not selling to divorced someones remarrying. Especially if it was pre second Vatican. And here is why I DON'T think it's homophobia is because in all the cases I've seen of this, the offended parties were previous customers for other services. So they didn't refuse service because they were gay. Also, every one that I can remember offered to find them a service provider that would take care of their needs.

And the interracial thing was actually a thing in my lifetime. I don't know if for cakes, but some churches had major problems with it. And I think it resolved itself without a supreme court ruling. Just social pressure.

I think we can go ahead and take this to its logical conclusion and just have government choose your vocation and send you to work where they think you should go. You are in fact stating that the government should be able to choose for you whom you can and will work for.

Vince wrote:And the interracial thing was actually a thing in my lifetime. I don't know if for cakes, but some churches had major problems with it. And I think it resolved itself without a supreme court ruling. Just social pressure.

I can't get behind that. I think the court rulings were certainly a contributing factor.

Loving Vs. Virginia

Brown Vs. Board of Education

Not to mention laws, like the Civil Rights Act

You are in fact stating that the government should be able to choose for you whom you can and will work for.

Absolutely not. The gov't says you may not open a public biz and by criteria of race, creed, sexual orientation, ad nauseum, exclude certain people from your service. Having a public biz has legal consequences. If you just want to bake cakes privately for your definitely straight buddies in exchange for money and have them pass on your awesome artistry by word of mouth to other potential partakers, go for it. But your ass isn't claiming "self-employed" on a tax return and you're not a business entity.

And here is why I DON'T think it's homophobia is because in all the cases I've seen of this, the offended parties were previous customers for other services.

I don't think there's enough evidence to support this assertion. If someone comes in and orders, say, a birthday cake then you probably won't know if they are straight or gay or what have you so if you don't want to serve gays you won't know not to serve them. If they order a wedding cake with two male figures on top, though, then that's a pretty strong hint.

I wouldn't argue with any of those if they are an actual religious doctrine of their faith.

If a religion is racist or bigoted against homosexuals, then to take action to uphold those portions of that religion is to make yourself racist or bigoted against homosexuals. I can't see any way around that simple fact.

Besides, people invent all sorts of kooky religions all the time. To give blanket approval to ignore laws based on ones beliefs is to invalidate the entire concept of laws.

However if you can honestly say that it's not about the gay thing - that you would agree that any belief of any sort should allow one to discriminate at will - then as I said above at least I applaud your consistency. If only the people enacting these laws were as egalitarian in their application instead of specifically targeting those evil gays.

TPRJones wrote:

And here is why I DON'T think it's homophobia is because in all the cases I've seen of this, the offended parties were previous customers for other services.

I don't think there's enough evidence to support this assertion. If someone comes in and orders, say, a birthday cake then you probably won't know if they are straight or gay or what have you so if you don't want to serve gays you won't know not to serve them. If they order a wedding cake with two male figures on top, though, then that's a pretty strong hint.

I know the Oregon victims (by that I mean the bakery) had served the lesbian couple for a couple of years with birthday cakes, etc. They knew they were gay and they knew they were a couple. As much as you want every single one of these cases to be about hate, you're simply wrong.

Oh, no, it's still about hate. In that case the bakers don't themselves feel hatred, but they do support the religion that endorses it.

"The fork belongs on the right side when setting a table."

"Why are you filled with such hate? The fork should be able to go wherever it wants."

Yeah, go tell the homosexuals that lost custody of their children for being gay that their problems are as important as where the fork goes at the dinner table. Maybe those that were not allowed by the hospitals to be with their dying loved ones because they weren't "family" due to being gay will be comforted by how unimportant their tragedies were.

Things are better now, yes. That's good. Those changes are in spite of the religions that preach bigotry, though, not because of them.

You don't agree with me? Why are you so filled with hate?

Do you see the point I am making?

Why are you so filled with hate?

Because the world at large fuels my hate generator, particularly the stupider parts.

And why the hell are we speaking of forks now?

TPRJones wrote:Oh, no, it's still about hate. In that case the bakers don't themselves feel hatred, but they do support the religion that endorses it.

I guess we are at odds that will never reconcile. I understand being a Christian without hate. You understand being gay and hating Christians.

TPRJones wrote:

Leisher wrote:Here's a thought: Go get a fucking job that your religion allows you to perform.

I completely agree, and I'm glad you finally understand why those bakers should be made to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples.

I think you're mistaking me for someone else.

We're about to get a lesson on how to bury a story

Suspected shooter in Queens slaying of Imam and friend taken into police custody, may have been settling score in Muslim-Hispanic feud