Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Bullying and mendacity.

How about they wanted the right to order the wedding cake of their choice just as any other customers were allowed to do?  Have you even read the statements of all involved or do you just make things up?

Ok...I really have to go fix dinner.  But you guys are really unbelievable here.  So quick to judge and condemn.

Edited July 12, 2017 by JulieM

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How about they wanted the right to order the wedding cake of their choice just as any other customers were allowed to do?  Have you even read the statements of all involved or do you just make things up?

Ok...I really have to go fix dinner.  But you guys are really unbelievable here.  So quick to judge and condemn.

Cui bono. Follow the money, it rarely leads one astray.

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Once again, I've read the actual statements of those involved.  You seem to have nothing to back up your "assumptions" or accusations.  But I'll release you from the CFR since you can't produce any references.

Gotta sign off now, though.  Have a nice evening and I'll check in later!

You don't have any CFR to release me from, as I wasn't claiming facts, only making guesses and speculation, just as you are. And the "statements of those involved" don't prove what you claim they do.

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How about they wanted the right to order the wedding cake of their choice just as any other customers were allowed to do?  Have you even read the statements of all involved or do you just make things up?

Ok...I really have to go fix dinner.  But you guys are really unbelievable here.  So quick to judge and condemn.

I just don't like to see people bullied. Never have. It goes against my grain.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I won't play that game with you, Scott.  You're the one making the claim.  I've stated the cakes were the same 

If it's just your opinion that they wanted their wedding cake  "custom made expressly for their homosexual wedding", but have nothing to back your statement up, just admit it's only your opinion and I'll forget about my CFR.

Everything I've read has stated that she loved the wedding cake so much that this baker made for her Mom, she wanted the same cake for her wedding. 

What's the dispute about, then, if all she wants was a cake identical to the one her mother had? If there's nothing uniquely homosexual about the cake she wants, why is she claiming discrimination on that basis? Why would the baker offer to sell her anything else in the store but not a generic wedding cake? Does that make sense to you?

Edited July 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What's the dispute about, then, if all she wants was a cake identical to the one her mother had? 

Because, she was denied that and the baker refused to bake or sell her the same cake that he gladly baked and sold to her mother for her wedding, and ONLY because he learned she was marrying another woman.  

That's discrimination.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we're talking about two separate cases here.

The one I just read up on -- the one that SCOTUS announced a few weeks ago that it will consider -- concerns two men who wanted a cake from the baker, not two women. The defendant in the case is Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Denver.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You infringe on one's freedom of conscience when you force him to do something in violation of it. No one has a "civil right" to do that.

Not unless he refused to sell them the  same product that he offers to everyone else -- which the baker in question has not done.

The baker in question refused to sell the same product/service he offers to everyone else. Isn't that so?

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have utterly ignored the last several posts that differentiate between discrimination against people and refusal to deal in products that offend one's sincerely held values. The baker in question here has never refused to deal with gays as clientele. What he has done is to refuse to sell a specific kind of product to anyone, gay or straight.

What specific kind of products would those be, Scott?

[Gray]

16 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

The argument was never about civil rights, it was about changing the definition of a word.  The proponents of gay marriage couldn't win that battle so they took a different approach, bullying people into agreeing with them.  Gays have always had the same Civil Rights as anyone else. Even in regards to marriage.

That's a rather Orwellian argument. I doubt you'd say the same thing if the only legal marriage option available in the US were same-sex marriage.

Proponents of gay marriage make up a majority of the US. Gay marriage is the law of the land. The battle is already won. Maybe opponents of gay marriage can find another group to try to harass? The left-handed? Or perhaps red heads?

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even when it means infringing on someone's freedom of conscience, apparently.

What about the "civil rights" of the one whose freedom of conscience is being infringed upon? Not only do you have no regard for such freedom, you mock it with cavalier remarks.

How noble of you.

You know, at one point in this country some folks considered it a matter of "conscience" that they keep black kids out of the same schools with white kids.

I'm so glad that we don't privilege some folks' distorted notions of "conscience" over the civil rights of all Americans.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm making an assumption -- just like you are.

If they wanted an identical one to what their mother had, why didn't they just order a wedding cake and not indicate it was for a homosexual wedding? Were they trying to make a public statement and vindictively make an example out of the baker?

Like I stated before, you seem to be a proponent for the Don't ask-Don't tell strategy.

They were trying to buy a cake. The same cake they'd had at another wedding. The baker refused to make the same cake. So it isn't about the product. It was about the where and who. So unless the who and where changes the product magically, you really have no legs to stand on. This is clearly discrimination. The only argument is about whether the specific discrimination is warranted and legal. SCOTUS will decide.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps you can answer why they offered to sell the couple anything else in the store if they were so discriminatory against gays. JulieM doesn't appear to have any idea.

I take it you didn't ask your wife did you.  

Julie already answered this for you.  I will repeat her answer.  Bakeries don't pre-bake wedding cakes.  They are generally all special order.  Offering the couple to buy something else in the bakery when they need a wedding cake is useless.

It would be like going into a place that only makes custom suits made to order and them telling you to buy a swimming suit instead.  While swimming suits are nice to have, they don't really take the place of a custom made suit.  

Honestly by your answers, I don't really think you have any intention of understanding the basic issues that the courts have been ruling on.  It seems to be a pattern with you when it comes to gay marriage issues.  You are willing to ignore the laws of this country in order to get your own way.  Fortunately that is not how the courts work.  They follow the laws.  The civil rights laws have been a part of American law for the past 50 years.  If you want to ignore those laws, then the only way legally that can be done is to repeal the law.  So go for it.  Until the baker is willing to follow the laws of this country, they are going to get into legal problems.  As far as I know, every single one of these cases has all ended up the same.  The baker is required to follow the laws of this country.  Religious beliefs don't trump federal and state law.

Hope that answered your question.

[USU78]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's a rather Orwellian argument.

We are living in a rather Orwellian world  ...  where pigs rule because they are more equal than other animals.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just don't like to see people bullied. Never have. It goes against my grain.

 

That's good. Me too.

Bullying is bad. Discrimination is bad and in my book is a form of bullying. You disagree and instead feel that the bully (the one who started this by refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay person) is being bullied by the person who was first bullied and who is trying to keep people from being bullied in the future.

You keep asking why this person is making a big deal out of not being sold a cake. IMO- this is why. 

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We are living in a rather Orwellian world  ...  where pigs rule because they are more equal than other animals.

I'm really flummoxed as the language of victimization used here. The people who are used to privilege now think themselves victims because a minority group now has the same rights that the privileged have always enjoyed.

[USU78]

A few years back the Denver HUD office decided to engage in "gotcha" governance.  They hired a Ute woman whom they instructed to dress in ratty clothes, not bathe for a week, leave her hair untended, and go from rental to rental to rental around the Salt Lake Valley, applying for housing.

Of course no one would rent to her, and it as precisely because nobody could reasonably believe that she was a good risk to take care of a place she lived in.

Every one of those landlords was charged with discriminatory housing practices and dragged butt-first into the quasi-legal system where the alleged judge is an employee of the agency doing the charging.  Because of the economics of the situation (the fines they faced would or could steal their hard-won equity) each settled, undertaking through consent decree onerous things nobody would think reasonable under the circumstances.

The set-up artists at the HUD office were well pleased with their efforts  ...  and they didn't even have to conduct a single trial, where even the captive quasi-judge was highly unlikely to countenance his employer's piracy.  All because rational people made rational decisions, but didn't act proactively to protect themselves from the intended harm:  all it required was a rational business basis for turning down.  But all they could see was the filth and all they could remember was the stench.  But they were too kind and polite to state in the turn-down letters the real reason.  They didn't want to hurt a probably mentally ill person.  They didn't want to be unkind.

And the Denver HUD office knew all all this.

Wedding cake and T-Shirt bullies know all this.

The wedding cake and T-Shirt victims are too kind and polite to act proactively and in self-defense.  They could certainly have come up with an easily defended legal reason to turn down the onerous job that offends their religious feelings.  But they were honest and kind.

Wedding cake and T-Shirt bullies are neither.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm really flummoxed as the language of victimization used here. The people who are used to privilege now think themselves victims because a minority group now has the same rights that the privileged have always enjoyed.

If one would play the role of Epiphanes, one must assume opprobrium will ensue.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

A few years back the Denver HUD office decided to engage in "gotcha" governance.  They hired a Ute woman whom they instructed to dress in ratty clothes, not bathe for a week, leave her hair untended, and go from rental to rental to rental around the Salt Lake Valley, applying for housing.

Of course no one would rent to her, and it as precisely because nobody could reasonably believe that she was a good risk to take care of a place she lived in.

Every one of those landlords was charged with discriminatory housing practices and dragged butt-first into the quasi-legal system where the alleged judge is an employee of the agency doing the charging.  Because of the economics of the situation (the fines they faced would or could steal their hard-won equity) each settled, undertaking through consent decree onerous things nobody would think reasonable under the circumstances.

The set-up artists at the HUD office were well pleased with their efforts  ...  and they didn't even have to conduct a single trial, where even the captive quasi-judge was highly unlikely to countenance his employer's piracy.  All because rational people made rational decisions, but didn't act proactively to protect themselves from the intended harm:  all it required was a rational business basis for turning down.  But all they could see was the filth and all they could remember was the stench.  But they were too kind and polite to state in the turn-down letters the real reason.  They didn't want to hurt a probably mentally ill person.  They didn't want to be unkind.

And the Denver HUD office knew all all this.

Wedding cake and T-Shirt bullies know all this.

The wedding cake and T-Shirt victims are too kind and polite to act proactively and in self-defense.  They could certainly have come up with an easily defended legal reason to turn down the onerous job that offends their religious feelings.  But they were honest and kind.

Wedding cake and T-Shirt bullies are neither.

Have you ever been a landlord?

It is absolutely discrimination to determine based on the appearance of a person, whether or not they are a good risk. That's why landlords have potential tenants fill out applications. They run credit checks. They check references. They DON't make decisions based upon how someone looks. If they do, they should be subject to sanctions for discrimination. Terrible example, USU78.

 

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

A few years back the Denver HUD office decided to engage in "gotcha" governance.  They hired a Ute woman whom they instructed to dress in ratty clothes, not bathe for a week, leave her hair untended, and go from rental to rental to rental around the Salt Lake Valley, applying for housing.

Of course no one would rent to her, and it as precisely because nobody could reasonably believe that she was a good risk to take care of a place she lived in.

Every one of those landlords was charged with discriminatory housing practices and dragged butt-first into the quasi-legal system where the alleged judge is an employee of the agency doing the charging.  Because of the economics of the situation (the fines they faced would or could steal their hard-won equity) each settled, undertaking through consent decree onerous things nobody would think reasonable under the circumstances.

The set-up artists at the HUD office were well pleased with their efforts  ...  and they didn't even have to conduct a single trial, where even the captive quasi-judge was highly unlikely to countenance his employer's piracy.  All because rational people made rational decisions, but didn't act proactively to protect themselves from the intended harm:  all it required was a rational business basis for turning down.  But all they could see was the filth and all they could remember was the stench.  But they were too kind and polite to state in the turn-down letters the real reason.  They didn't want to hurt a probably mentally ill person.  They didn't want to be unkind.

And the Denver HUD office knew all all this.

Wedding cake and T-Shirt bullies know all this.

The wedding cake and T-Shirt victims are too kind and polite to act proactively and in self-defense.  They could certainly have come up with an easily defended legal reason to turn down the onerous job that offends their religious feelings.  But they were honest and kind.

Wedding cake and T-Shirt bullies are neither.

So you think the baker decided to discriminate against the gay couple because they dressed bad and smelled?  This is going to be a really interesting court trial.  I can hardly wait to see what happens when this is brought up as the reason for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If one would play the role of Epiphanes, one must assume opprobrium will ensue.

Indeed. But those seeking to oppress gay people as Epiphanes oppressed the Jewish people think themselves victimized when the oppressed object.

[USU78]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Have you ever been a landlord?

It is absolutely discrimination to determine based on the appearance of a person, whether or not they are a good risk. That's why landlords have potential tenants fill out applications. They run credit checks. They check references. They DON't make decisions based upon how someone looks. If they do, they should be subject to sanctions for discrimination. Terrible example, USU78.

 

That's funny, given what I do for a living. Landlords check people's cars and appearance all the time. I'm giving you gold here on how the world really works. A landlord entrusts a $300k asset to an idiot who doesn't know how to brush her teeth? Come on.

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

So you think the baker decided to discriminate against the gay couple because they dressed bad and smelled?  This is going to be a really interesting court trial.  I can hardly wait to see what happens when this is brought up as the reason for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

You're funny.  I like that.

You don't appear to have any moral/ethical qualms about set-up artists being in charge of government agencies.  I don't like that.

[USU78]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

Indeed. But those seeking to oppress gay people as Epiphanes oppressed the Jewish people think themselves victimized when the oppressed object.

Epiphanes forced Jews to eat pork sacrificed to idols and to get painful surgeries in the days before anesthetics.

Just how is that like not wanting to participate in an obscene rite?

Oh yeah, it is.  Except Epiphanes is the cake bullies and T-Shirt bullies.

The lengths you need to go to to support the morally and ethically insupportable  ...  my, how difficult you must find this.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That's funny, given what I do for a living. Landlords check people's cars and appearance all the time. I'm giving you gold here on how the world really works. A landlord entrusts a $300k asset to an idiot who doesn't know how to brush her teeth? Come on.

You're explaining how the world used to work. Times have changed. Discrimination is no longer tolerated, let alone glorified like you seem to be doing. There are proper ways to determine risk. The appearance of an individual isn't a good measure and the individual who employs that method is a fool and likely to get themselves into hot water...and rightly so.

What do you do for a living?