It doesn't actually matter whether or not a person is an "artist" - that was just some nonsense they went for to attack civil rights as a free speech issue.  Like I said, maximum cynicism, lol.

If an "artist" opens up a shop that serves the public, they've created an expectation of service - which puts them under the purview of public accom laws.  It's not complicated in the slightest, it's just very...very lucrative to manufacture these cases, and the issue is culturally sensitive enough to keep courts poking it with poles for a lifetime.

(January 18, 2019 at 4:03 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(January 17, 2019 at 5:24 pm)Amarok Wrote: And the stupidity of comparing a free agent like a movie director to a baker with a shop can't be overstated

Well I am trying to understand this issue which seems to be more complicated that participants in this topic seem to be are aware of. I am not saying that I am right but rather "prove me wrong".
I guess the main reason we can't understand each other is the notion of baking cakes being an art. Some of you clearly don't think it is and perhaps that's why we don't understand each other, and perhaps this is what we should be debating.

And let's presume it is, like Supreme Court says it is (although I myself have a hard time accepting it) then there is no reason not to compare a cake baker with a painter or sculptor or an architect or a film director etc. I mean there is nothing stopping you to pick up Yellow Pages and call some sculptor and order a sculpture which he can reject.

Now there is this issue with "he has a bakery shop where everyone can enter" where I guess you're trying to say that people can enter and drink coffee and eat cakes and that these services should not be refused on these ground and I agree, but I've seen many bakeries where you can only enter and order cakes and nothing else, like this one



Or maybe these two bakers can't compare to each other since this woman seems much more serious if not more artistic in her work than "that guy"?

But then there are also other non artistic services which people can object to do. Like it is now a case with lawyers and Trump, since no respectable lawyer wants to take him as a client.

There are some serious problem with this argument . Being Trump isn't a legal protected class . Being Gay is . Discriminating against someone for being a protected class is unconstitutional . If a lawyer refuses to defend a gay person because they are gay that is also unconstitutional.

---

(January 18, 2019 at 10:39 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: It doesn't actually matter whether or not a person is an "artist" - that was just some nonsense they went for to attack civil rights as a free speech issue.  Like I said, maximum cynicism, lol.

If an "artist" opens up a shop that serves the public, they've created an expectation of service - which puts them under the purview of public accom laws.  It's not complicated in the slightest, it's just very...very lucrative to manufacture these cases, and the issue is culturally sensitive enough to keep courts poking it with poles for a lifetime.

And gays are a protected class . Being Trump isn't .

(January 18, 2019 at 10:39 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: If an "artist" opens up a shop that serves the public, they've created an expectation of service - which puts them under the purview of public accom laws. 

Sure, if you sell pre made baked goods it's those laws but I guess laws change when it comes to making specific orders. I mean if you're a Christian you believe that homosexuality sends you to Hell and you have to write on a cake "Grooms Steve and Mike" then he believes he's "participating in sin" and that makes him uncomfortable and he fears he's going to hell.

I mean let's take this example: someone orders from a Muslim baker that he has to write on a cake "Eat Lots Of Bacon". For Muslims eating bacon leads to Hell, so do you think he has a right to object?

I mean I know that you'll say that that baker hates gays, and you're right he is doing it as a discrimination, but the Supreme court doesn't see it from that perspective but from that other "uncomfortable" one. So do you think that from that perspective they're right?

(January 18, 2019 at 2:28 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(January 18, 2019 at 10:39 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: If an "artist" opens up a shop that serves the public, they've created an expectation of service - which puts them under the purview of public accom laws. 

Sure, if you sell pre made baked goods it's those laws but I guess laws change when it comes to making specific orders. I mean if you're a Christian you believe that homosexuality sends you to Hell and you have to write on a cake "Grooms Steve and Mike" then he believes he's "participating in sin" and that makes him uncomfortable and he fears he's going to hell.

I mean let's take this example: someone orders from a Muslim baker that he has to write on a cake "Eat Lots Of Bacon". For Muslims eating bacon leads to Hell, so do you think he has a right to object?

I mean I know that you'll say that that baker hates gays, and you're right he is doing it as a discrimination, but the Supreme court doesn't see it from that perspective but from that other "uncomfortable" one. So do you think that from that perspective they're right?

You don't seem to have a clear grasp of Christianity.  Stop being scared and learn.  It's not hard.

I can't say I know any Christians that "hate gays", because it's not a "normal" aspect of Christianity.  There are people who use it as a "label" and excuse, but that's them.  Just like there are radical atheists, like you, who go spread hate.   They're nutty, you're nutty.  Same thing.  Why is your hate better?

(January 18, 2019 at 2:37 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 18, 2019 at 2:28 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Sure, if you sell pre made baked goods it's those laws but I guess laws change when it comes to making specific orders. I mean if you're a Christian you believe that homosexuality sends you to Hell and you have to write on a cake "Grooms Steve and Mike" then he believes he's "participating in sin" and that makes him uncomfortable and he fears he's going to hell.

I mean let's take this example: someone orders from a Muslim baker that he has to write on a cake "Eat Lots Of Bacon". For Muslims eating bacon leads to Hell, so do you think he has a right to object?

I mean I know that you'll say that that baker hates gays, and you're right he is doing it as a discrimination, but the Supreme court doesn't see it from that perspective but from that other "uncomfortable" one. So do you think that from that perspective they're right?

You don't seem to have a clear grasp of Christianity.  Stop being scared and learn.  It's not hard.

I can't say I know any Christians that "hate gays", because it's not a "normal" aspect of Christianity.  There are people who use it as a "label" and excuse, but that's them.  Just like there are radical atheists, like you, who go spread hate.   They're nutty, you're nutty.  Same thing.  Why is your hate better?

You should get out more.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_or...Ministries

I'd be interested to see a similar list of radical atheist groups who spread hate.

Boru

Ok just one last thought: I think that supreme court sees this as seller's right to offer rather than right to sell. I mean if you go to a pizza shop you can only order what is on the menu and if they don't offer like Neapolitan pizza you can't make them do it. So my guess is that supreme court saw it from that point of view, that you can not insist on a product that doesn't exist.

Of course it is ridiculous because this guy is obviously a homophobe since the difference is minimal, but hey it is a way to look at it.

(January 18, 2019 at 2:37 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 18, 2019 at 2:28 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Sure, if you sell pre made baked goods it's those laws but I guess laws change when it comes to making specific orders. I mean if you're a Christian you believe that homosexuality sends you to Hell and you have to write on a cake "Grooms Steve and Mike" then he believes he's "participating in sin" and that makes him uncomfortable and he fears he's going to hell.

I mean let's take this example: someone orders from a Muslim baker that he has to write on a cake "Eat Lots Of Bacon". For Muslims eating bacon leads to Hell, so do you think he has a right to object?

I mean I know that you'll say that that baker hates gays, and you're right he is doing it as a discrimination, but the Supreme court doesn't see it from that perspective but from that other "uncomfortable" one. So do you think that from that perspective they're right?

You don't seem to have a clear grasp of Christianity.  Stop being scared and learn.  It's not hard.

I can't say I know any Christians that "hate gays", because it's not a "normal" aspect of Christianity.  There are people who use it as a "label" and excuse, but that's them.  Just like there are radical atheists, like you, who go spread hate.   They're nutty, you're nutty.  Same thing.  Why is your hate better?

Hating gays is absolutely a normal part of Christianity, although not all Christians hate gays, quite a number do directly because of their belief, and it is often sited as a reason why they shouldn't have to serve gays. The cake thing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Calling some ones nutty beliefs nutty is not spreading hate.

If you don't want your beliefs ridiculed get less ridiculous beliefs.

(January 18, 2019 at 3:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 18, 2019 at 2:37 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You don't seem to have a clear grasp of Christianity.  Stop being scared and learn.  It's not hard.

I can't say I know any Christians that "hate gays", because it's not a "normal" aspect of Christianity.  There are people who use it as a "label" and excuse, but that's them.  Just like there are radical atheists, like you, who go spread hate.   They're nutty, you're nutty.  Same thing.  Why is your hate better?

Hating gays is absolutely a normal part of Christianity, although not all Christians hate gays, quite a number do directly because of their belief, and it is often sited as a reason why they shouldn't have to serve gays. The cake thing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Calling some ones nutty beliefs nutty is not spreading hate.

If you don't want your beliefs ridiculed get less ridiculous beliefs.

It's absolutely not.  I know a lot of Christians, and can't think of one that ever openly hates on gays.  I have friends and coworkers in the LGBT community and would go to lunch with them and to their parties sometimes.  Never was an issue. Most of the time their relationships never come up in conversation anyway.  They might bring their significant other when we all hang out, but nobody points a finger.  Just talk to them like anybody else.

You are finding what you want to find, even though it's not there.  There are radicals who find excuses to hate people, but that's more about them and not Christianity.

You can ridicule whatever you like.  It's your choice to play make believe in your head and tell everybody what they think.  At the end of the day, you are the one filled with hate, not the people you are fussing about.

It's funny how people aren't concerned with civil rights until it's their's being infringed upon. christards specifically. It's quite alright to victimize, or even make gays feel inferior, but suggest for a single moment that the christards recieve the same treatment, and that is no longer acceptable. 

See example below:
me:
Asshat religitards will always use their cherrypicked nonsense to justify their hatred and bias. It is honestly revolting. I sincerely hope one day an athiest business refuses to allow some religitards to say grace before they eat.


Have I ever mentoned that I hate people?

Mr. Silver Hammer:
Of course you hope for that, but why not hope they can just eat peacefully without someone bothering them?

These bozos and their idiotic book, written thousands of years ago by simpleminded, goat herding troglodytes. 
Let me ask the resident quarterwits a few questions about their wish granting magic sky daddy's chronicles.

How many languages do you think exist on this pale blue dot?
5?
10?
100?
1000?
According to the Google, it's about 6,500. Admittedly, roughly third of them are only spoken by a handfull of people.
Now, is every single word, in every single language, eaisly translateable into every other language?
The answer is a resounding no!

So, if we have person A, that speaks language A, and person B, who speaks language B, and finally, person C, who speaks both languages. Person B says something to person A. Person C translates. There is the possibility of some mistranslation, correct? Let us pretend for the sake of this argument that, the douchebag you hold in such regard, actually exists. If creatures such as humans, with finite minds, can indeed mistranslate their own languages, what makes you think they can understand the mind of infinity?

Oh, but the heavenly scumbag is all knowing. Surely it would painstakingly dictate every small detail of its memoirs to the exceptionally dumb clean shaven apes in a way that even they could understand. Let's imagine this is true. We have a perfect text, from a perfect mind. Let us also imagine that the human being is a kind hearted, compassionate, sympathetic, reasonable creature. And that they make an honest attempt to properly translate said text. But, not every single word is eaisly translateable into every other language. Mistakes are made. As time goes on, much like the game of telephone, the message becomes more and more distorted. 

However,from experience, we can agree that humans are not kind hearted, compassionate, sympathetic, reasonable creatures. They will stab their own mother in the back if it means they get that much further in life. In other words, humans are mean, uncaring, unsympathetic, intolerant fuckwads! They will twist words, to mean whatever gets them along. Especially to the uneducated. 

With this being the case, how can you trust anything from your magic book?

(January 18, 2019 at 4:23 pm)no one Wrote: It's funny how people aren't concerned with civil rights until it's their's being infringed upon. christards specifically. It's quite alright to victimize, or even make gays feel inferior, but suggest for a single moment that the christards recieve the same treatment, and that is no longer acceptable. 

See example below:
me:
Asshat religitards will always use their cherrypicked nonsense to justify their hatred and bias. It is honestly revolting. I sincerely hope one day an athiest business refuses to allow some religitards to say grace before they eat.


Have I ever mentoned that I hate people?

Mr. Silver Hammer:
Of course you hope for that, but why not hope they can just eat peacefully without someone bothering them?

These bozos and their idiotic book, written thousands of years ago by simpleminded, goat herding troglodytes. 
Let me ask the resident quarterwits a few questions about their wish granting magic sky daddy's chronicles.

How many languages do you think exist on this pale blue dot?
5?
10?
100?
1000?
According to the Google, it's about 6,500. Admittedly, roughly third of them are only spoken by a handfull of people.
Now, is every single word, in every single language, eaisly translateable into every other language?
The answer is a resounding no!

So, if we have person A, that speaks language A, and person B, who speaks language B, and finally, person C, who speaks both languages. Person B says something to person A. Person C translates. There is the possibility of some mistranslation, correct? Let us pretend for the sake of this argument that, the douchebag you hold in such regard, actually exists. If creatures such as humans, with finite minds, can indeed mistranslate their own languages, what makes you think they can understand the mind of infinity?

Oh, but the heavenly scumbag is all knowing. Surely it would painstakingly dictate every small detail of its memoirs to the exceptionally dumb clean shaven apes in a way that even they could understand. Let's imagine this is true. We have a perfect text, from a perfect mind. Let us also imagine that the human being is a kind hearted, compassionate, sympathetic, reasonable creature. And that they make an honest attempt to properly translate said text. But, not every single word is eaisly translateable into every other language. Mistakes are made. As time goes on, much like the game of telephone, the message becomes more and more distorted. 

However,from experience, we can agree that humans are not kind hearted, compassionate, sympathetic, reasonable creatures. They will stab their own mother in the back if it means they get that much further in life. In other words, humans are mean, uncaring, unsympathetic, intolerant fuckwads! They will twist words, to mean whatever gets them along. Especially to the uneducated. 

With this being the case, how can you trust anything from your magic book?

If you want to find hate, just look for atheists.  They'll preach it more than anybody else.  Some of friendly, but most can't even get along with each other.   It's always "me, me, me."