Welcome to Thunderdome

GORDON wrote:You took issue with the term "at gunpoint."

Oh, no. I had issue with his claiming it was someone being forced into a contract by the government. They weren't.

Vince wrote:I would have the government not be involved.

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.

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.

TPRJones wrote:

Vince wrote:I would have the government not be involved.

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.

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.

How about polygamy weddings? Weddings between father and son? Weddings between minors? I'm sorry I have standards.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Weddings between minors?

But I thought you believed in traditional marriages?

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.

I have standards.

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?

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.

It isn't the same though because the old testament and fundamentalists. ha ha checkmate.

GORDON wrote:It isn't the same though because the old testament and fundamentalists. ha ha checkmate.

"Yeah, but Christians"

amirite?

society has set up rules that mean those choices have consequences.

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.

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.

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."

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.

TPRJones wrote:

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."

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.

I agree, but it doesn't make it right or even acceptable.

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.

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.

Why are you so full of hate? You must be a christian with your old testament.

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.

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.

I will simply afford the homosexuals community the same respect and courtesy that they afford Christians.

How very Christian of you. I think we all recall the time Jesus said, "Do unto others as they do unto you."

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.

Sounds like more than a couple religions I can think of.

Making a baker bake a cake for a wedding his religious beliefs condemn doesn't seem to be that time, imho.

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.

TPRJones wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

Sounds like more than a couple religions I can think of.

And that's wrong, so why would it be ok for the SJWs to do?

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.

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!

Let freedom ring!

Let's say someone went in there and asked for a cake to be made celebrating 9/11.

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.

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, 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.

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!

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...

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.

... is grounds to lose your biz. Not following the law does that.

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.

Malcolm wrote:

Let's say someone went in there and asked for a cake to be made celebrating 9/11.

I wouldn't say that's equivalent to a wedding, most of which have a body count of exactly two.

So, in your opinion, there's gray area, and personal judgement has to come into play?

Ok, whose judgement? I vote TPRs. He's a pretty good guy.

TPRJones wrote:

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."

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.

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.