Damien the Leper Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Just in case people were wondering, this was never about persecuting Christians as the narcissists would have you believe.http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Just in case people were wondering, this was never about persecuting Christians as the narcissists would have you believe.http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/ No, the Oregon bakers weren’t fined for publishing the complainant’s home address, or for otherwise publicizing the complaint against them. You have to be skeptical of partisan news https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/10/no-the-oregon-bakers-werent-fined-for-publishing-the-complainants-home-address-or-for-otherwise-publicizing-the-complaint-against-them/ Please don't be like most people here in the MDDB, most are never skeptical of Fox or the National Review. Edited July 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Popular Post Calm Posted July 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2015 Please don't be like most people here in the MDDB, most are never skeptical of Fox or the National Review. I don't think you have a clue about what most people here on MDDB are skeptical of if you think that. 7
Popular Post KevinG Posted July 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2015 I don't think you have a clue about what most people here on MDDB are skeptical of if you think that. Its easier to swallow your own bias if you demonize those you disagree with as brain addled sheep. Fox news is the favorite boogie man of self appointed superior thinkers. Of course we know that Raw Story, Salon and other left leaning media outlets are free from bias and their readers are oh so open minded. (Snort) 8
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Its easier to swallow your own bias if you demonize those you disagree with as brain addled sheep. Fox news is the favorite boogie man of self appointed superior thinkers. Of course we know that Raw Story, Salon and other left leaning media outlets are free from bias and their readers are oh so open minded. (Snort) We have to be skeptical of Fox News, National Review, Raw Story, Salon, Mother Jones. We have to be skeptical of all partisan news. I personally don't like liberal news, but I can't always avoid it. I like nonpartisan news, academic research, and doubtfulnews.com I don't think you have a clue about what most people here on MDDB are skeptical of if you think that. Let's hope I am wrong because I seen many here link to the National Review, perhaps it is my confirmation bias? or perhaps the sample I seen is too small? Edited July 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Buckeye Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) The bakery and photographer cases are going to die down quickly. The real threat in the immediate future will come from the public's growing awareness of the good fruits produced by same-sex families (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865632457/Changing-landscape-Same-sex-couples-among-Utahs-newest-foster-parents.html) and the growing embrace of such families by other faiths and faith-based institutions (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865632457/Changing-landscape-Same-sex-couples-among-Utahs-newest-foster-parents.html) ETA: this threat is also seen in foxnews, which has slowly been moving to support, or at least tolerate, SSM. See, e.g., http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/01/its-time-for-republican-party-leaders-to-embrace-marriage-equality.html Edited July 13, 2015 by Buckeye 3
KevinG Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 We have to be skeptical of Fox News, National Review, Raw Story, Salon, Mother Jones. We have to be skeptical of all partisan news. I personally don't like liberal news, but I can't always avoid it. I like nonpartisan news, academic research, and doubtfulnews.com Let's hope I am wrong because I seen many here link to the National Review, perhaps it is my confirmation bias? or perhaps the sample I seen is too small? I like skepticism in healthy doses. The sooner anyone realizes their sources are going to be biased they are better able to distinguish the facts from the editorializing and clever editing. Active LDS tend to lean conservative, and so they will resonate with conservative news sources. That does not equate to swallowing whole everything those sources say. Every one in a while I find myself really enjoying a Salon or HuffPo piece or getting my knickers twisted over something from Breitbart or NR. 3
Calm Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Let's hope I am wrong because I seen many here link to the National Review, perhaps it is my confirmation bias? or perhaps the sample I seen is too small?How many is many? And make sure for your claim that these are posting the NR link for support and not for criticizing the position. Better yet, categorize those who primarily present the links as significant evidence, those who primarily present the links as possibilities and those that primarily present the links as proof of what the opposite side is claiming as well as observing those who change their reason for linking depending on the situation and those dogmatic in their usage if any. Then compare it to the number of posters overall. If you do that, you might be able to come up with a more accurate projection rather than a comment that comes across as based on your own prejudices. 1
Calm Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 I like nonpartisan news, academic research, and doubtfulnews.com I would suggest reading this or something similar and applying it to all human endeavour to get a more accurate view of such things: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/noble-dream-objectivity-question-and-american-historical-profession
ERayR Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 No, the Oregon bakers weren’t fined for publishing the complainant’s home address, or for otherwise publicizing the complaint against them. You have to be skeptical of partisan news https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/10/no-the-oregon-bakers-werent-fined-for-publishing-the-complainants-home-address-or-for-otherwise-publicizing-the-complaint-against-them/ Please don't be like most people here in the MDDB, most are never skeptical of Fox or the National Review. If you have such a low opinion of the posters at MDDB why are you hanging around or do you think you can save the poor ignorant souls of the board. 4
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) How many is many? And make sure for your claim that these are posting the NR link for support and not for criticizing the position. Better yet, categorize those who primarily present the links as significant evidence, those who primarily present the links as possibilities and those that primarily present the links as proof of what the opposite side is claiming as well as observing those who change their reason for linking depending on the situation and those dogmatic in their usage if any. I was simply using tactics to get people to respond. I don't think anyone here believes Fox is infallible (I hope not), but I seen some people link to articles that are misleading or inaccurate. "I would suggest reading this or something similar and applying it to all human endeavour to get a more accurate view of such things:"Thank you, I will at least read the summary. If you have such a low opinion of the posters at MDDB why are you hanging around or do you think you can save the poor ignorant souls of the board. I sometimes ask myself the same question Edited July 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Zakuska Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Snopes has a good write up countering the claims of the OP: http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet-cakes-melissa-damages/ Edited July 13, 2015 by Zakuska
tonie Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The bakery discriminated and should be held accountable.The bakery should not be held liable for someone feelings being hurt.I will need to re-read the case, but I recall that the plaintiff was on notice, or should have been, that information provided could/would be made public.
Zakuska Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) 5 Stories to better understand the situation: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/5_stories_to_better_understand.html The Kleins' attorney, Anna Harmon, struck back with a sharply worded statement in defense of her clients' resolve to abide by their religious beliefs."The Commissioner was correct when he stated in his final order that this case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. With his final order, Brad Avakian has made this case about an overpowered elected official using his position to root out thought and speech with which he personally disagrees." ... An administrative law judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries awarded $75,000 to Rachel Cryer-Bowman and $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer in compensatory damages for "emotional suffering" they experienced from the "cake refusal." The judge denied any award for "caused by media and social media attention to this case."Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman following the judge's earlier finding that the bakers had illegally discriminated against the women by refusing service on account of their sexual orientation. The judge awarded Laurel Bowman-Cryer a lesser amount because she wasn't present when Rachel Bowman-Cryer and her mother were turned away at the bakery and because he found her testimony "about the extent and severity of her emotional suffering to be exaggerated in some respects." ... "LBC [Laurel Bowman-Cryer] was a very bitter and angry witness who had a strong tendency to exaggerate and over-dramatize events," the judge wrote. "On cross examination, she argued repeatedly with Respondents' counsel and had to be counseled ... to answer the questions asked of her instead of editorializing about the cake refusal and how it affected her. Her testimony was inconsistent in several respects with more credible evidence." The judge credited Bowman-Cryer's testimony only when it was either undisputed or disputed but corroborated by other credible testimony....Laurel Bowman the Drama Queen. You know what... Since Gay cakes are usually Rainbow... bakeries could just start charging double for Gay Cakes because of all the expensive food coloring needed. j/k Edited July 13, 2015 by Zakuska
Calm Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) I was simply using tactics to get people to respond. Please don't if you want to appear credible yourself. Do you want people to respond because they care about the issue or about your hyperboles/mind games? Edited July 13, 2015 by calmoriah 2
Kenngo1969 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) How many is many? ...He seen them, Cal! He seen them! With his own eyes, he seen them! Who are you to question what he seen? P.S.: "Where's your grammar, boy?" "She's in the kitchen." Edited July 13, 2015 by Kenngo1969 1
Storm Rider Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Just in case people were wondering, this was never about persecuting Christians as the narcissists would have you believe.http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/ Val, be serious. You really are going to traipse in here with a story from Raw Story and telling us it is the "real story". It was a good laugh, which is what I expect was your intent.
Bobbieaware Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Just in case people were wondering, this was never about persecuting Christians as the narcissists would have you believe.http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/Raw Story retracted their original report that asserted the Kleins were fined for publishing the lesbian couple's address. After all, that address was prominently listed on the publically available legal documents the aggrieved couple filed against the Kliens. So In an updated version of that earlier report, Raw Story issued the following correction:"An earlier version of this article contained a significant error that resulted from failure to distinguish the difference between the agency’s recommendation and the commissioner’s final ruling. The bakers were not, as previously reported, punished for threats by others against the couple, as the agency had recommended. They were ordered by the commissioner to pay damages to the couple for emotional harm caused by their unlawful discrimination.” Edited July 13, 2015 by Bobbieaware 1
Storm Rider Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Raw Story retracted their original report that asserted the Kleins were fined for publishing the lesbian couple's address. After all, that address was prominently listed on the publically available legal documents the agreived couple filled against the Kliens. So In an updated version of that earlier report, Raw Story issued the following correction:"An earlier version of this article contained a significant error that resulted from failure to distinguish the difference between the agency’s recommendation and the commissioner’s final ruling. The bakers were not, as previously reported, punished for threats by others against the couple, as the agency had recommended. They were ordered by the commissioner to pay damages to the couple for emotional harm caused by their unlawful discrimination.” Correct, the affects of not being able to buy a cake is overwhelmingly painful and hurtful in today's sensitive world. In fact, it is so acutely traumatizing to the victims denied a cake that an objective servant of the people felt the need to punish the despicable bakery such that they were put out of business, destroying their livelihood, and assessed a penalty of $135,000 to be paid the aggrieved, forlorn couple denied a cake. When a laborer in Qatar loses his life on a construction site, his life is worth approximately $41,000. In the United States being refused to have someone bake you a cake is much, much worse than losing one's life. Yup, we live in a wonderful world here in the US. People starve around the world, lose their lives in wars, conflicts or for the heck of it and receive nothing but heartache, but here in the US a gay couple is refused a cake and they are paid $135,000 and the evil offending businesses are shut down. Soon we will hear the demand, "Kill the Baker!" Edited July 15, 2015 by Storm Rider 3
Damien the Leper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 I like skepticism in healthy doses. The sooner anyone realizes their sources are going to be biased they are better able to distinguish the facts from the editorializing and clever editing. Active LDS tend to lean conservative, and so they will resonate with conservative news sources. That does not equate to swallowing whole everything those sources say. Every one in a while I find myself really enjoying a Salon or HuffPo piece or getting my knickers twisted over something from Breitbart or NR.MSNBC drives me crazy. I watch Fox and CNN for comedic relief.
Damien the Leper Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 Val, be serious. You really are going to traipse in here with a story from Raw Story and telling us it is the "real story". It was a good laugh, which is what I expect was your intent.It was. I don't personally have an opinion on the matter.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Please don't be like most people here in the MDDB, most are never skeptical of Fox or the National Review. I would love for you to quantify this. For instance is your opinion of me, who is quite conservative, that I watch Fox and read the National Review? Because if that is your opinion of me you are so wrong. And if it is not then who is the "most people" you are referring to? And if you could not tell this board has been over run by much more liberals and leftist as of late, that it is really funny that you would accuse this board of not only watching Fox news but not even being skeptical.
ERayR Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I would love for you to quantify this. For instance is your opinion of me, who is quite conservative, that I watch Fox and read the National Review? Because if that is your opinion of me you are so wrong. And if it is not then who is the "most people" you are referring to? And if you could not tell this board has been over run by much more liberals and leftist as of late, that it is really funny that you would accuse this board of not only watching Fox news but not even being skeptical. Don't fret it. It is just that el patron is in a snit today.
SmileyMcGee Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 The case facts: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweetcakes%20signed%20PO.pdfThe bakery broke the law. You don't get to break the law because you have different feelings than other people. If you're uncomfortable operating a business in a lawful manner then find a new business, or, better yet, find a new god.
Popular Post rongo Posted July 14, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 14, 2015 Let's all agree that the bakery "broke the law" (at least, the law as it is currently constituted). What bothers me about the Bureau of Labor ruling are two things: 1) the order not to talk negatively about the ruling in public 2) the order that the $135,000 be paid out of "personal assets" and not "business assets." It appears to me that the intent is to ruin the couple personally, not to see that "justice" is administered or that the plaintiff's "pain and suffering" be mitigated. How in the world in this country can anybody order anybody not to comment negatively about a ruling, or demand that personal and not business assets be used to pay a fine resulting from business practice? In the past, I would say that this will be overturned when it goes to the courts, but no one can say anything will or will not happen in the courts now. 6
Recommended Posts