Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[california boy]

Sigh....

 

I am a lawyer. I went to law school. If the court asks them things like that and/or bases their decision on their inconsistency of living up to their Christian beliefs according to how the Court understands Christianity, then the decision will be overturned. A judge who did that would be incredibly stupid. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in a courtroom.

 

I have already answered your questions many, many times. I don't think I agree with how this couple has handled the situation at all (but the difference between you and this lesbian couple and me is that I am not so arrogant to think that if someone disagrees with me or my lifestyle, that they should be guilty of some violation of law). I didn't answer THIS TIME, because my opinion about those things do not matter as it pertains to a legal analysis of whether this couple should be entitled to make a faith based decision. Meanwhile you will continue to ignore my statements that bringing up any perceived inconsistency would be bad form in a courtroom because it doesn't do your viewpoint any favors.

So let's see. You are lawyer AND went to law school. And by doing so you KNOW what the judge is going to find admissible AND you know whether his ruling will be overturned. WOW.

You could have saved the church a lot of money if you had told them what the judges were going to allow as evidence AND.what would be overturned in the prop 8 case. You should speak up more often. We wouldn't even need the. Courts and judges we just need a lawyer AND went to law school.

[Stargazer]

Tell that to Stargazer, see his post 217

LOL, I said "If a gay bakery refused to bake me a straight wedding cake, could I get the government to put them out of business? I'd like to see that happen -- it wouldn't, I'm pretty sure."

I didn't say there were any, I said that IF there were any, could I get the govt to put them out of business if they refused to bake a straight wedding cake.

It's a rhetorical question. My rhetorical answer is, if there were any, and they refused, the govt wouldn't do a thing about it.

Don't get too worked up about it, Skeptic.

[california boy]

LOL, I said "If a gay bakery refused to bake me a straight wedding cake, could I get the government to put them out of business? I'd like to see that happen -- it wouldn't, I'm pretty sure."I didn't say there were any, I said that IF there were any, could I get the govt to put them out of business if they refused to bake a straight wedding cake.It's a rhetorical question. My rhetorical answer is, if there were any, and they refused, the govt wouldn't do a thing about it.Don't get too worked up about it, Skeptic.

personally I stand against any discrimination based on race religion sex gender orientation no matter what someone's beliefs are. Prejudices have already caused too much evil in the world. If a gay person discriminates, it is just as evil and I certainly would be right there condemning it

Edited July 9, 2015 by california boy

[Storm Rider]

LOL, I said "If a gay bakery refused to bake me a straight wedding cake, could I get the government to put them out of business? I'd like to see that happen -- it wouldn't, I'm pretty sure."

I didn't say there were any, I said that IF there were any, could I get the govt to put them out of business if they refused to bake a straight wedding cake.

It's a rhetorical question. My rhetorical answer is, if there were any, and they refused, the govt wouldn't do a thing about it.

Don't get too worked up about it, Skeptic.

 

I think the issue is that you and everyone like you are not in a protected class i.e. those with special rights.  You unfortunately are part of the great majority that are too common to have any rights when it comes to these issues.  If you are denied getting what you want it is because....well, because you don't deserve it; you are NOT special.  Isn't our current society fun?

[Mystery Meat]

So let's see. You are lawyer AND went to law school. And by doing so you KNOW what the judge is going to find admissible AND you know whether his ruling will be overturned. WOW.

You could have saved the church a lot of money if you had told them what the judges were going to allow as evidence AND.what would be overturned in the prop 8 case. You should speak up more often. We wouldn't even need the. Courts and judges we just need a lawyer AND went to law school.

 

Dude...

 

There are rules of evidence and procedure. There are things that are admissible and things that are not. A violation of the rules of evidence would be grounds for appeal and overturning a verdict. So yes, by being a lawyer and going to law school I have a pretty good idea on what a judge CAN find admissible and what he CAN'T find admissible. How Christian a person is based on their adherence to everything in the Bible (and therefore how sincere their refusal to serve based on religious beliefs is) is absolutely not admissible. A judge, any judge, does not get to violate those basic rules of evidence because they want to know how devoted or consistent a particular defendant/plaintiff is to that judge's personal interpretation of the Bible (or anyone else's for that matter).

 

If you want to get snarky with me, that's fine I can take it; but you should probably at the very least have slight clue what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself. When you don't it not only diminishes your arguments it also makes you look ignorant. And I don't think you are ignorant.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Kenngo1969]

just a slight correction, Brad is the commissioner of BOLI, not an ALJ. But in Oregon, he has the power to overrule any decision by the ALJ.

 

The fact stands, that the outcome of this was determined long before any evidence was issued or any law was considered. There was no way Brad could have cause the ruling to go any other way and still keep his political base happy.

Ah.  Thanks for the clarification.

 

P.S.: For an administrator to prejudge the case like that seems like a terrific opportunity to file suit challenging, not only the action in this case, but the whole administrative regime.  And, since I highly doubt that the proprietors of "Sweet Cakes" are the only ones affected by such treatment, I might look at certifying a class.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

I think the issue is that you and everyone like you are not in a protected class i.e. those with special rights.  You unfortunately are part of the great majority that are too common to have any rights when it comes to these issues.  If you are denied getting what you want it is because....well, because you don't deserve it; you are NOT special.  Isn't our current society fun?

Actually he is in the exact same protected class as everyone else. If someone discriminates against him because he is white or because he is Mormon or cause he is a man then he has the same right to seek legal redress. That is what equal protection under the law means

[ERayR]

Actually he is in the exact same protected class as everyone else. If someone discriminates against him because he is white or because he is Mormon or cause he is a man then he has the same right to seek legal redress. That is what equal protection under the law means

 

See post #255

[Mystery Meat]

See post #255

 

Meh. I don't expect him to respond, that has become his MO. When someone writes something he doesn't agree with, he gets snarky (again I don't mind the snarkiness or the insults; I think they add some flare to the board) and ignores the points he can't explain or doesn't know how to rebut. Instead he attacks the person ("You should speak up more often. We wouldn't even need the. Courts and judges we just need a lawyer AND went to law school."). I am not expecting an apology, even though CB often enjoys pointing out how hypocritical Christians are, or points to certain teachings of Jesus that he thinks those of us who oppose SSM are in conflict with. Motes and beams I guess.

[TheSkepticChristian]

It shouldn't have taken him a whole lot of critical thinking to realize that these numbers are essentially meaningless.

 

Is there a stat that is not meaningless? Do you have a better study? 

 

 

They do not because there are too many unidentified variables.

 

It is extremely easy speculate possible unidentified variables for any statistic. 

It is extremely easy to find anything in everything. 

 

 

That you even posted the stats mean you think they support your argument, thus you are not being skeptical enough.

 

Are you also skeptical about the stats that you like? 

 

Atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population, far outside the margin of error, so that means an atheist rarely gets arrested.

Do they convert when they are in prison? Maybe, but even if 50% of them convert, it still means that atheists rarely gets arrested.  

 

 you are not being skeptical enough.

 

I refuse to accept the stats as the final word, but it doesn't mean I am going to dismiss them just because I don't like them. 

The stats could have significant errors, but that is the best I seen so far. 

 

 

Dude...

 

There are rules of evidence and procedure. 

 

Mr. Lawyer, 

 

Does Oregon have laws which protect people from being fired or refused services on the basis of their sexual orientation?

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx

Edited July 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

Is there a stat that is not meaningless? Do you have a better study? 

 

 

 

It is extremely easy speculate possible unidentified variables for any statistic. 

It is extremely easy to find anything in everything. 

 

 

 

Are you also skeptical about the stats that you like? 

 

Atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population, far outside the margin of error, so that means an atheist rarely gets arrested.

Do they convert when they are in prison? Maybe, but even if 50% of them convert, it still means that atheists rarely gets arrested.  

 

 

I refuse to accept the stats as the final word, but it doesn't mean I am going to dismiss them just because I don't like them. 

The stats could have significant errors, but that is the best I seen so far. 

 

 

 

Mr. Lawyer, 

 

Does Oregon have laws which protect people from being fired or refused services on the basis of their sexual orientation?

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx

 

Some of us choose criteria different than stats to base our life choices on.

[Mystery Meat]

Is there a stat that is not meaningless? Do you have a better study? 

 

No, but I am not the one making the point. You are. The stats you have provided are incomplete at best.

 

Mr. Lawyer, 

 

Does Oregon have laws which protect people from being fired or refused services on the basis of their sexual orientation?

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx

 

Undoubtedly. I have stated my legal opinion that such laws violate the constitution. Many disagree with me, even a majority of Supreme Court justices. I am okay with that and I am not trying to hide from that. However, that is not what the bakers did here, despite many trying to paint them into that corner. They have shown no problem serving gay couples (even the couple who complained) in the past. They felt it violated their conscience to participate in a SSM (and that baking a wedding cake was participating). That is protected by the Constitution, or at least it used to be.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

No, but I am not the one making the point. You are. The stats you have provided are incomplete at best.

 

but all statistics are incomplete. Can you find the perfect statistic?

Like I said, it is extremely easy to speculate possible unidentified variables.

 

Why do you point that out if you can't find a better study? 

 

 

 

Undoubtedly. I have stated my legal opinion that such laws violate the constitution. 

 

So you admit there are laws in Oregon which protect people from being fired or refused services on the basis of their sexual orientation. 

Take the issue to a higher court, take the issue to the US Supreme Court, name calling the Oregon court is not going to help. 

 

 

Some of us choose criteria different than stats to base our life choices on.

 

Good

 

What do the top 10 most peaceful countries on Earth have in common? 

 

1. Peaceful Countries 

2. They have anti-discrimination laws 

3. Low poverty rate 

 

A country is prosperous when the people are tolerant of gays and the poor. The USA ranks 94 on the Global Peace Index. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

but all statistics are incomplete. Can you find the perfect statistic?

Like I said, it is extremely easy to speculate possible unidentified variables.

 

Why do you point that out if you can't find a better study? 

 

 

 

So you admit there are laws in Oregon which protect people from being fired or refused services on the basis of their sexual orientation. 

Take the issue to a higher court, take the issue to the US Supreme Court, name calling the Oregon court is not going to help. 

 

 

 

Good

 

What do the top 10 most peaceful countries have in common? 

 

1. Peaceful Countries 

2. They have laws anti-discrimination laws 

3. Low poverty rate 

 

A country is prosperous when the people are tolerant of gays and the poor. The USA ranks 94 on the Global Peace Index. 

 

Do you have trouble maintaining a train of thought?  Your posts jump all over the place.

[Mystery Meat]

but all statistics are incomplete. Can you find the perfect statistic?

Like I said, it is extremely easy to speculate possible unidentified variables.

 

Why do you point that out if you can't find a better study? 

 

 

 

So you admit there are laws in Oregon which protect people from being fired or refused services on the basis of their sexual orientation. 

Take the issue to a higher court, take the issue to the US Supreme Court, name calling the Oregon court is not going to help. 

 

 

I don't have to find a better study, because I don't care. The one you used sucked for the point it was intended for. The letter from the Bureau of Prisons even said this should not be indicative of how many people are associated with which religions. You could very well be right about how many Mormons there are in prison as compared to atheists. I don't really care though.

 

Also, thanks for completely ignoring and chopping the rest of what I said as it relates to the laws of the state of Oregon and what the couple actually did. It shows a lot of integrity to manipulate someone's words and then respond only to the portion that you feel is easiest to address.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 The one you used sucked for the point it was intended for. 

 

with the same logic, all the stats are problematic for the point they intend for. 

 

It is extremely easy to find problems with a statistic that you don't like. 

 

 

 The letter from the Bureau of Prisons even said this should not be indicative of how many people are associated with which religions. 

 

keep reading the letter. 

 

 

 It shows a lot of integrity to manipulate someone's words and then respond only to the portion that you feel is easiest to address.

 

How did I manipulate your words? I didn't cherry pick your words because I didn't read them all, I admit. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mystery Meat]

with the same logic, all the stats are problematic for the point they intend for. 

 

It is extremely easy to find problems with a statistic that you don't like. 

 

 

 

keep reading the letter. 

 

 

 

How did I manipulate your words? I didn't cherry pick your words because I didn't read them all, I admit. 

 

So wait I should keep reading the letter, but you didn't read my entire post.

 

Yeah, I am done.

[Calm]

SC, I don't like or dislike the stats you posted.  Stats are like guns, it is what people try to do with them that makes them safe or dangerous.  Stats in your hands appear most often to be dangerous.  

 

In this case, they just don't work to support your argument.  If there was another argument that they supported-- such as how do people identify their religious state in federal prison--they would work just fine.

 

There are plenty of stats out there that are meaningful and work just fine for what they are being used for because the researcher chooses the right variable to study and control the others that are relevant.  Your retreat to claiming that all stats are incomplete or are problematic for the point they are intended for makes me wonder if you have taken any research or statistic courses.  If you have, I would suggest adding a few more to your course load. If you haven't, you need to take a few to help you make better use of the research you study.

 

I applaud you for looking for evidence to support your arguments.  Many don't.  But choosing to misapply statistics is not an effective way to find that support.

Edited July 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

SC, I don't like or dislike the stats you posted.  Stats are like guns, it is what people try to do with them that makes them safe or dangerous.  Stats in your hands appear most often to be dangerous.  

 

In this case, they just don't work to support your argument.  If there was another argument that they supported-- such as how do people identify their religious state in federal prison--they would work just fine.

 

There are plenty of stats out there that are meaningful and work just fine for what they are being used for because the researcher chooses the right variable to study and control the others that are relevant.  Your retreat to claiming that all stats are incomplete or are problematic for the point they are intended for makes me wonder if you have taken any research or statistic courses.  If you have, I would suggest adding a few more to your course load. If you haven't, you need to take a few to help you make better use of the research you study.

 

I applaud you for looking for evidence to support your arguments.  Many don't.  But choosing to misapply statistics is not an effective way to find that support.

 

As Mark Twain is reported to have said, there are three kinds of lies.  "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Edited July 9, 2015 by ERayR

[TheSkepticChristian]

I applaud you for looking for evidence to support your arguments.  Many don't

 

Well, thank you. I applaud your thinking skills, you sometimes challenge my arguments, and I like real challenges. 

 

 

There are plenty of stats out there that are meaningful and work just fine for what they are being used for because the researcher chooses the right variable to study and control the others that are relevant.  Your retreat to claiming that all stats are incomplete or are problematic for the point they are intended for makes me wonder if you have taken any research or statistic courses.  If you have, I would suggest adding a few more to your course load. If you haven't, you need to take a few to help you make better use of the research you study.

 

I admit I haven't taken statistic courses, but I understand Math, circumstances, and confirmation bias. 

For example, I understand it is not a good idea to make an online survey for ex-mormons 

 

but I will do more research about statistics, I am a learner 

 

  But choosing to misapply statistics is not an effective way to find that support.

 

and the blogger that posted the data admitted all of that, he said 

 

 

Keep in mind that these numbers only cover prisoners who self-reported their religious identification. They don’t represent all prisoners in the system. We will likelynever have perfect numbers… but neither did Rod Swift.

We’re also only talking about prisoners in the federal prison system — about 218,000 people — not all prisoners in America.

Prisoners can change religious affiliations, too. We don’t know if these numbers represent what they believed when they committed their crime(s) or what they believed after they went through some personal transformation.

Finally, it’s also important to note that 17% of prisoners reported no religious preference. They’re not necessarily atheists and may even believe in a higher power. 

…

When you look at Swift’s numbers from 1997 and the information here, there are some rough similarities. Yes, the raw numbers are different (we have a lot more prisoners now!) and some of the proportions have changed, but it seems very plausible to me that Swift really was given that data by Golumbaski.

Were we wrong to quote the 0.2% number for this long? Not necessarily… but I still don’t believe we had a good foundation for that. Using a shoddy website with no verifiable information as the basis for a claim we make is the type of thing we expect from religious people. We must be better than that.

Here’s another question worth asking: How does the prisoner data compare to the religious makeup of the general population? In other words, are atheists over-presented or under-represented in prison?

If you look at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (PDF), you’ll see that self-described atheists make up 1.6% of the population. The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (PDF) puts atheists at 0.7% of the population. (If those numbers seem awfully low to you, make sure you’re not confusing atheists with the ever-rising percentage of “Nones.”)

In both cases, atheists are *very* under-represented in prison and that’s heartening to see. (The proportion of Catholics in prison is about on par with their makeup in the general population, Muslims are over-represented in prison, and Protestants appear to be under-represented though you really have to look at individual denominations to get a clearer picture of what’s happening.)

 

Given the data we have, and acknowledging its limits, self-professed atheists constitute an even smaller percentage of prisoners than we ever thought. In both cases, atheists are *very* under-represented in prison and that’s heartening to see. (The proportion of Catholics in prison is about on par with their makeup in the general population, Muslims are over-represented in prison, and Protestants appear to be under-represented though you really have to look at individual denominations to get a clearer picture of what’s happening.)

Given the data we have, and acknowledging its limits, self-professed atheists constitute an even smaller percentage of prisoners than we ever thought.

 

In the end, I agree with you. I agree the stats are problematic. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[KevinG]

As Mark Twain is reported to have said, there are three kinds of lies.  "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

 

Most people use statistics like a drunk uses a light pole.  More for support than for illumination.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I can grant you some point here. It is taken under advisement. Honest question (I am not super familiar with segregation era laws): were there laws that mandated segregation in the south? If so (and for all I know there weren't) then I don't think we have tried it.

In light of the other thread on this issue, I obviously missed the boat with my comment. Thanks for pointing this out. Something for me to chew on.

[california boy]

Dude...

 

There are rules of evidence and procedure. There are things that are admissible and things that are not. A violation of the rules of evidence would be grounds for appeal and overturning a verdict. So yes, by being a lawyer and going to law school I have a pretty good idea on what a judge CAN find admissible and what he CAN'T find admissible. How Christian a person is based on their adherence to everything in the Bible (and therefore how sincere their refusal to serve based on religious beliefs is) is absolutely not admissible. A judge, any judge, does not get to violate those basic rules of evidence because they want to know how devoted or consistent a particular defendant/plaintiff is to that judge's personal interpretation of the Bible (or anyone else's for that matter).

 

If you want to get snarky with me, that's fine I can take it; but you should probably at the very least have slight clue what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself. When you don't it not only diminishes your arguments it also makes you look ignorant. And I don't think you are ignorant.

So you are a lawyer. Good for you. You think you know exactly what questions the judge will allow in his court and which ones he won't. You might be right. I am. It a lawyer and I have absolutely no desire to. be one. If the prosecutor can not even challenge the sincerity of the defendants claim of having some kind of Christian belief that prevents them from baking a simple came then indeed there is something grossly wrong with our legal system. I thought the. courts are suppose to find truth but as even you have pointed out, truth is.not the main objective.

In any event, this case will be tried in a court of law and what is said on a discussion board won't make one bit of difference. We won't know what happens until it goes to trial

What I do know is that by these bakers actions their "deeply held religious. beliefs are certainly not very deep at all. Lately people have been abandoning Christianity at an alarming rate. I think one of the primary reasons religion is failing can be summed up by this case. A lot of hypocrisy and an abandonment of the teachings of Christ on how we treat others. I certainly would not be proud to defend these hypocrites

[ERayR]

So you are a lawyer. Good for you. You think you know exactly what questions the judge will allow in his court and which ones he won't. You might be right. I am. It a lawyer and I have absolutely no desire to. be one. If the prosecutor can not even challenge the sincerity of the defendants claim of having some kind of Christian belief that prevents them from baking a simple came then indeed there is something grossly wrong with our legal system. I thought the. courts are suppose to find truth but as even you have pointed out, truth is.not the main objective.

In any event, this case will be tried in a court of law and what is said on a discussion board won't make one bit of difference. We won't know what happens until it goes to trial

What I do know is that by these bakers actions their "deeply held religious. beliefs are certainly not very deep at all. Lately people have been abandoning Christianity at an alarming rate. I think one of the primary reasons religion is failing can be summed up by this case. A lot of hypocrisy and an abandonment of the teachings of Christ on how we treat others. I certainly would not be proud to defend these hypocrites

 

Your misunderstanding come from the false presumption that Christianity is supposed to condone any and all actions and not call the world to repentance.

[Mystery Meat]

If the prosecutor can not even challenge the sincerity of the defendants claim of having some kind of Christian belief that prevents them from baking a simple came then indeed there is something grossly wrong with our legal system.

 

You actually want judges to be able to interpret religious code? Now that is crazy.

 

I thought the. courts are suppose to find truth but as even you have pointed out, truth is.not the main objective.

 

Well if this isn't a gross manipulation of anything I have said, then I don't know what is. Does it make you feel somehow justified to twist what I said? Does it help you fit me into a box of some hateful person who just wants to discriminate against gays and hates the truth? Just know when you do it, it not only hurts you, it hurts others like you. Next time I hear a gay person's tragic story of some hateful person who was treated poorly by a bigot I will remember our interaction and be less likely to believe them.

In any event, this case will be tried in a court of law and what is said on a discussion board won't make one bit of difference. We won't know what happens until it goes to trial

What I do know is that by these bakers actions their "deeply held religious. beliefs are certainly not very deep at all.

 

Christ said "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Surely no person who uses Christ's teachings would not selectively apply them to people who disagree with him...then again...

 

Lately people have been abandoning Christianity at an alarming rate. I think one of the primary reasons religion is failing can be summed up by this case. A lot of hypocrisy and an abandonment of the teachings of Christ on how we treat others. I certainly would not be proud to defend these hypocrites

 

And yet for someone who likes to use Christ's teaching as a sword, you don't do a very good job of living up to them (to be fair, there aren't many who do). You bash and rail against one couple who you don't think lives up to Christ's teachings, even going as far as questioning their sincerity to those beliefs (despite the fact that they have served the couple before with no problem), and yet you have yet to criticize the lesbian couple for their blatant disregard for many of Christ's teachings. Who is the real hypocrite here? AGAIN, beams and motes.

 

The sad part about trying to discuss these things with you is that you selectively respond over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. None of what I said above is new. But you are so blinded that you refuse to be responsive for whatever reason(s). I find it very, very, very disturbing that you not only find yourself qualified to judge these people's dedication to their faith, but you have no problem selectively applying Christ's teachings and you want a judge, who may or may not even believe in Christ, to make a determination in a court of law (not religion) as to their sincerity as well. Yet, Christ's teachings could never apply to this lesbian couple (who would not turn the other cheek) or to you (judge not lest ye be judged). But go ahead, keep trying to remove the mote from other's eye, while ignoring the beam in your own.