This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Who cares if it IS discrimination? Hell, at least it's a step in the right direction. Let's start discriminating against people based on whether they're assholes or not, instead of who makes them horny.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stark Raving's post
09-04-2015, 11:57 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(09-04-2015 10:22 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(09-04-2015 09:15 AM)cjlr Wrote:  People can and do argue that.

(I mean, seriously, large portions of the American religious right claim that explicitly - I'm a foreigner and I've heard the claim)

Examples please. I’ve literally been surrounded by the American religious right for most of my life, and I’ve never heard it.

Are... are you serious?

It's official doctrine for the Mormons, to name but one. See also: literally any one of hundreds of websites making such claims.

(09-04-2015 10:22 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
Quote:I don't know anyone that believes this, so I don't know if this is an appeal to the absurd or just a plain old straw man.

Rolleyes

Well now there is a compelling argument.

I know, right?

What can I say; I got it from the best.
(hint: this "compelling argument", as you call it, is literally what you just said)

(09-04-2015 10:22 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
Quote:Like who?

buncha quotes

Yes, and? I never said we couldn't determine original intent. I said it didn't matter.
(although that's not the who my comment was even referring to...)

Trivial example: define "arms". Two hundred years ago, when military service actually depended on men showing up with their own weapons, that may once have mattered. How many people in service today bring their own guns with them when they enlist?
(spoiler: it's zero)

(09-04-2015 10:22 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
Quote:I don't know what you're imagining here, but, yes, people do in fact do exactly that. Or were the writers of the first amendment concerned with abortion and gay weddings?

Intent and context matter because that's why legal documents say what they do, but as those contexts change then those intents are irrelevant to modern-day interpretations.

People do exactly that when it suits them. When it doesn’t they are perfectly fine with pretending the second amendment doesn’t protect an individual right but a collective one. Sometimes a collective one that no longer applies because militias couldn’t possibly be effective in a modern context.

I repeat: like who?

(09-04-2015 10:22 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
Quote:I remain unclear as to just who you think you're arguing against?

I mean, "let's ignore laws we don't like because lol" isn't a serious position, is it?

It is a serious position of people that support laws that effectively ban common citizens from obtaining and keeping arms such as those reversed by District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Indeed. Rights are constructed so as to - in theory - maximize social utility. The limits to those rights are set to balance individual freedom against individual or collective harm.

There are many other countries with effectively the same types of firearms laws as the United States, who somehow manage to do so without a nebulous "right" to such and are capable of defending them without recourse to insane fantasies of armed resistance to even more nebulous "outsiders".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm still waiting to hear just what paranoid delusion will lead to similar circumstances on American soil. Tomorrow.
If the American "unorganised militia" go into full swing I expect it wouldn't be long until they start fighting each other, whites against blacks against Mexicans against asians, liberals against conservatives, it would be a free for all, disorganised, clumsy and gung-ho.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Texans, Mississippi, etc decide to either break away or take over the whole country.

Given the video clips of white police brutality on blacks it wouldn't surprise me if the cause is internal rather than an external invader. But luckily they've all got guns so at least it will be a spectacular clash.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
09-04-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Quote:There are many other countries with effectively the same types of firearms laws as the United States, who somehow manage to do so without a nebulous "right" to such and are capable of defending them without recourse to insane fantasies of armed resistance to even more nebulous "outsiders".

The belief Americans need arms to defend themselves from strangers is ridiculous to say the least, and dumb to say the most - Considering the military budget and the amount of troops America has stationed worldwide, I think cutting it to about 1/2 or 1/3 would still not mean an invasion. There are not many countries wishing to invade America, and just like any other country on earth people are probably so divided that instead of fighting together they'd kill each other.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 05:35 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 01:56 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I'll try to give an example of what I mean without using such a hot button topic.

The constitution guarantees the right to peacefully assemble. Somewhere down the line, politicians passed laws that require a permit and pay an application fee to peacefully assemble. Some judge interprets the new law to be legal because it doesn't absolutely prohibit the assembly. But I would ask, would the founding fathers agree? Would they believe a permit and a fee is needed for something that is already permitted without question? Their intent was very clear in the constitution itself.

Same with gun laws. Would the founders require a permit for something that is already a permitted act under the constitution?

When you say guns, you mean flintlocks and muskets right? Because obviously the founders only were referring to flintlocks and muskets because that's all that existed at the time so they obviously didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to apply to anything beyond that. For any other type of arm, what we really need to do is have a constitutional amendment to determine if those types of weapons are to be protected. It will only take a few years, no more than 10 if we were really committed to getting a decision on it, but I think that is well worth it to make sure we don't sway one iota from the intentions of the drafters of the Constitution. Otherwise, we are just substituting our own opinions and judgements over that of the timeless wisdom of members of a an 18th century agrarian society that literally subsisted on slave labor. And, that's just crazy talk and the kind of thinking that is just killing this country.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
11-04-2015, 09:02 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(11-04-2015 05:35 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 01:56 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I'll try to give an example of what I mean without using such a hot button topic.

The constitution guarantees the right to peacefully assemble. Somewhere down the line, politicians passed laws that require a permit and pay an application fee to peacefully assemble. Some judge interprets the new law to be legal because it doesn't absolutely prohibit the assembly. But I would ask, would the founding fathers agree? Would they believe a permit and a fee is needed for something that is already permitted without question? Their intent was very clear in the constitution itself.

Same with gun laws. Would the founders require a permit for something that is already a permitted act under the constitution?

When you say guns, you mean flintlocks and muskets right? Because obviously the founders only were referring to flintlocks and muskets because that's all that existed at the time so they obviously didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to apply to anything beyond that. For any other type of arm, what we really need to do is have a constitutional amendment to determine if those types of weapons are to be protected. It will only take a few years, no more than 10 if we were really committed to getting a decision on it, but I think that is well worth it to make sure we don't sway one iota from the intentions of the drafters of the Constitution. Otherwise, we are just substituting our own opinions and judgements over that of the timeless wisdom of members of a an 18th century agrarian society that literally subsisted on slave labor. And, that's just crazy talk and the kind of thinking that is just killing this country.

The Second Amendment says "arms". So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-04-2015, 10:12 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 01:56 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I'll try to give an example of what I mean without using such a hot button topic.

The constitution guarantees the right to peacefully assemble. Somewhere down the line, politicians passed laws that require a permit and pay an application fee to peacefully assemble. Some judge interprets the new law to be legal because it doesn't absolutely prohibit the assembly. But I would ask, would the founding fathers agree? Would they believe a permit and a fee is needed for something that is already permitted without question? Their intent was very clear in the constitution itself.

Same with gun laws. Would the founders require a permit for something that is already a permitted act under the constitution?


The law is amorphous. Remember, the Founding Fathers also owned slaves and did not grant the right to vote to anyone but property owning white males.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
11-04-2015, 10:29 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(11-04-2015 09:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 05:35 PM)BnW Wrote:  When you say guns, you mean flintlocks and muskets right? Because obviously the founders only were referring to flintlocks and muskets because that's all that existed at the time so they obviously didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to apply to anything beyond that. For any other type of arm, what we really need to do is have a constitutional amendment to determine if those types of weapons are to be protected. It will only take a few years, no more than 10 if we were really committed to getting a decision on it, but I think that is well worth it to make sure we don't sway one iota from the intentions of the drafters of the Constitution. Otherwise, we are just substituting our own opinions and judgements over that of the timeless wisdom of members of a an 18th century agrarian society that literally subsisted on slave labor. And, that's just crazy talk and the kind of thinking that is just killing this country.

The Second Amendment says "arms". So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

And the 14th Amendment says states may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." At no point does it say anything about it only applying to heterosexual people. So, there's that, too.

And yet, we're getting told the only proper way to address equal protection for gays and lesbian is with a brand spanking new Amendment. And why? Because the drafters of the 14th Amendment couldn't possibly have considered things like gay marriage because they never heard of such a thing.

Well, taking that argument to its logical conclusion, it's a damned sure bet that no one involved with the 2nd Amendment could have intended to be granting a right to any arms not then invented, which shortens the list to flintlocks, muskets and maybe those old cannons. I hear those are kick-ass for hunting, too.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
27-04-2015, 07:14 AM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
This appears to be a different case (the bakery is Sweet Cakes by Melissa), but gofundme just pulled a campaign to pay fines for Aaron and Melissa Klein over refusal to provide services for a lesbian wedding:
- http://www.thegailygrind.com/2015/04/25/...ame-satan/
- http://christiannews.net/2015/04/26/gofu...l-purpose/
The couple had raised over one hundred thousand dollars towards their $135000 fine.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(27-04-2015 07:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  This appears to be a different case (the bakery is Sweet Cakes by Melissa), but gofundme just pulled a campaign to pay fines for Aaron and Melissa Klein over refusal to provide services for a lesbian wedding:
- http://www.thegailygrind.com/2015/04/25/...ame-satan/
- http://christiannews.net/2015/04/26/gofu...l-purpose/
The couple had raised over one hundred thousand dollars towards their $135000 fine.

Update:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon...JV20151229

US | Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:38pm EST Related: U.S.
Oregon bakery pays damages in lesbian wedding cake case

"Aaron Klein handed the state a check for nearly $137,000 on Monday, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman Charlie Burr said. The payment was first reported by the Oregonian newspaper late on Monday.

Burr said the shop owners subsequently raised about $500,000 from supporters via an online crowdfunding effort.”

So they raised $500,000 from other hate-mongers, paid out $144,000 and pocketed $356,000 for NOT baking a cake for a lesbian couple.

What is wrong with this picture? Consider

I think we need to conjure up something similar whereby we agree to split the crowdfounding money from racists/bigots/mysoginists/gay-bashers.

One of us will “refuse” to (fill in the blank), get “sued” by another one of us for said refusal and then split the blood money. At the very least thrown a big party. Angel

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: