Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

Who were being "set-up artists" in the Oregon case we've been discussing?  From what I read (regarding Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer's wedding), this did not happen.

Do you have evidence that this took place?  If so, I'd be interested in reading what references you have.  If not, that's not a valid point and the landlord comparison you described isn't valid here.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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?

The anti-gay lobby wants to take away civil rights for gay people. They want to break up their families, take away their children, and deny them services and housing. Some of them even support the death penalty for gay people abroad. Sounds like a modern reincarnation of Epiphanes.

 

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

The bullies are the victims now that the government says they can't be bullies any more. Somehow I'm not moved to compassion for the plight of the anti-gay bullies. They'll be just fine. Eventually they'll find another group to harass, I'm sure. 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Landlords pick up clues in order to predict future behavior.  How one maintains one's vehicle and one's person, in addition to the financial and background checks, are among those things that landlords look into to find those clues.  That is what rational people do.

Your lack of concern for the immoral and unethical behaviors of government agencies astounds me.

Just when did that become okay?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

The anti-gay lobby wants to take away civil rights for gay people. They want to break up their families, take away their children, and deny them services and housing. Some of them even support the death penalty for gay people abroad. Sounds like a modern reincarnation of Epiphanes.

The bullies are the victims now that the government says they can't be bullies any more. Somehow I'm not moved to compassion for the plight of the anti-gay bullies. They'll be just fine. Eventually they'll find another group to harass, I'm sure. 

Persistence in defense of the indefensible.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Landlords pick up clues in order to predict future behavior.  How one maintains one's vehicle and one's person, in addition to the financial and background checks, are among those things that landlords look into to find those clues.  That is what rational people do.

Your lack of concern for the immoral and unethical behaviors of government agencies astounds me.

Just when did that become okay?

Maybe you should start a new thread on this different topic ("immoral and unethical behaviors of government agencies") starting with the example of what took place with the landlords.

I can't see how it applies to the case we are currently discussing in the thread and it seems off topic to me. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by ALarson

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Persistence in defense of the indefensible.

You're defending discrimination against a long-suffering and persecuted minority. That's what's indefensible.

[Gray]

The more things change, the more they stay the same:

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

He has said more than once that I've seen that he would gladly make and sell them any other baked goods they wanted, including cakes. If it were, as you say, "about the where and who," don't you think he would refuse to sell <anything> to the gay couple for fear the cakes or cookies or whatever it is might get served at the wedding?

You are assuming ill intent and trying to pass your assumption off as fact. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He has said more than once that I've seen that he would gladly make and sell them any other baked goods they wanted, including cakes.

But, he refused to bake them a wedding cake that was identical to those he'd made & sold to other customers (including one of the bride's mothers).  I'm not sure what you're not understanding here.  All other customers had been allowed to order their own wedding cake, the one of their choice for their wedding day.  Are you saying that because they are gay, they do not have the same right to do this?  Because they are gay, they had to settle for a generic birthday type of cake?  This is an odd opinion to have, IMO. and I'm surprised you can't see the blatant discrimination involved here..

As others have asked you, how would your wife have felt if she'd not been allowed to order the wedding cake of her choice (as others had been allowed to do from the same baker)?  Would you have expected her to just take any old generic birthday cake off the shelf and use it for her wedding cake?  If not, why should someone have to do that just because they are gay?

Edited July 12, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ALarson said:

But, he refused to bake them a wedding cake that was identical to those he'd made & sold to other customers (including one of the bride's mothers).  I'm not sure what you're not understanding here.  All other customers had been allowed to order their own wedding cake, the one of their choice for their wedding day.  Are you saying that because they are gay, they do not have the same right to do this?  Because they are gay, they had to settle for a generic birthday type of cake?  This is an odd opinion to have, IMO. and I'm surprised you can't see the blatant discrimination involved here..

As others have asked you, how would your wife have felt if she'd not been allowed to order the wedding cake of her choice (as others had been allowed to do made by the same baker)?  Would you have expected her to just take any old generic birthday cake off the shelf and use it for her wedding cake?  If not, why should someone have to do that just because they are gay?

He refused to bake the wedding cake because he is opposed on principle to gay "marriage", not because he discriminates against gays as customers. Again, it's the product, not the person. 

And stop asking questions that have already been answered. That's a violation of board rules. I've already said that if I didn't like the way I was being dealt with by a baker, I would have taken my business elsewhere. That's how things are done in a free-market system. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He refused to bake the wedding cake because he is opposed on principle to gay "marriage", not because he discriminates against gays as customers.

Well, bottom line is that this baker discriminated against them.  You can defend why he discriminated all you want, but it was still discrimination.

(And, I'd probably have done what you state you'd do as I'm not into suing anyone....but I'm sure you'd be complaining and giving bad reviews to anyone who'd listen about any baker who refused to bake your wedding cake once they learned it was for a Mormon temple wedding.  That would be blatant religious discrimination.  This couple chose to take the legal route and that's within their rights too.)

Edited July 12, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, bottom line is that this baker discriminated against them.  You can defend why he discriminated all you want, but it was still discrimination.

(And, I'd probably have done what you state you'd do as I'm not into suing anyone....but I'm sure you'd be complaining and giving bad reviews to anyone who'd listen about any baker who refused to bake your wedding cake once they learned it was for a Mormon temple wedding.  That would be blatant religious discrimination.  This couple chose to take the legal route and that's within their rights too.)

Your so-called "bottom line" is not consistent with what you and others have been claiming. 

And the courses of action you suggest are fine. They are consistent with democratic and free-market principles. They do not amount to using judicial heavy-handedness to bully another into giving you your own way. 

[T-Shirt]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

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?

You want to make this about feelings rather than facts.  When you can't make an honest or rational argument, you result to insults.  Well done.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your so-called "bottom line" is not consistent with what you and others have been claiming. 

How so?

I've believed and stressed all along that the baker discriminated against this couple (my "bottom line").

 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You want to make this about feelings rather than facts.  When you can't make an honest or rational argument, you result to insults.  Well done.

That's a mischaracterization of my argument. Also a little ironic when you insult me while claiming I'm being insulting.

The argument that gay people always had marriage rights is incredibly Orwellian. I assume then you would consider yourself in possession of full marriage rights if you were only allowed to marry someone of your own gender?

Edited July 12, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How so?

I've believed and stressed all along that the baker discriminated against this couple (my "bottom line").

 

The party line here has been that he refused to sell anything to gays because he hates gays. I and others have maintained that he has only refused to bake them a wedding cake, this because he is opposed on principle to gay "marriage." You might think that an insignificant point, but I don't. 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The party line here has been that he refused to sell anything to gays because he hates gays. I and others have maintained that he has only refused to bake them a wedding cake, this because he is opposed on principle to gay "marriage." You might think that an insignificant point, but I don't. 

No. He refused to sell a wedding cake to gays because he feels justified in discriminating against gays.

I haven't seen anyone say he wouldn't sell "anything" nor have I seen anyone say he "hates" gays, though he may. I don't know. All I can tell is that his behavior is discriminatory and appears to be based on a bias against gays. But to refuse to sell his common product (a wedding cake) only to a certain group of people (gays) he is discriminating and appears to be a bigot. Even if he thinks he is justified in bigotry and discrimination based on his religious beliefs, he is still acting like a bigot and discriminating.

But we're all just talking in circles now, aren't we?

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The party line here has been that he refused to sell anything to gays because he hates gays.

Who has stated that "he hates gays"?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

So you utterly reject the concept of freedom of conscience because some people have behaved badly in the past. That strikes me as an overreaction -- or a rationalization. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who has stated that "he hates gays"?

 

No one has used those words. That's the impression I've gotten. No due consideration that the man might actually be motivated by sincerely lead religious beliefs. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. He refused to sell a wedding cake to gays because he feels justified in discriminating against gays.

I haven't seen anyone say he wouldn't sell "anything" nor have I seen anyone say he "hates" gays, though he may. I don't know. All I can tell is that his behavior is discriminatory and appears to be based on a bias against gays. But to refuse to sell his common product (a wedding cake) only to a certain group of people (gays) he is discriminating and appears to be a bigot. Even if he thinks he is justified in bigotry and discrimination based on his religious beliefs, he is still acting like a bigot and discriminating.

But we're all just talking in circles now, aren't we?

 

Have you missed the fact, mentioned repeatedly here, that he offered to sell them anything else in the store, including, according to what he said on one talk show, a cake?

As I said earlier, that strikes me as an odd way to express discrimination. 

What about the analogy that T-Shirt drew about his refusal to sell shirts that bear offensive messages? Is he discriminating against people who want to parade around with obscenity or sacrilege on their clothing? He'll sell them any other kind of shirt in his stock but won't trade in products that offend his values. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Aaron Klein, the Oregon baker:

Quote

It's almost as if the state is hostile toward Christian businesses

Concerning Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker:

Quote

Even after explaining to the commission that it wasn’t the people Jack objected to, it was the message the cake would send about marriage, an administrative law judge ruled against Jack in December 2013, saying that designing and creating cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies are not speech protected by the First Amendment. The commission also ordered Jack and his staff to design cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, go through a “re-education” program, implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years to show that Jack has completely eliminated his religious beliefs form his business.

$135K for refusing to eat the pork sacrificed to the image of Epiphanes?

Re-education programs?

Assuming the research is accurate and religion is actually centered in a particular part of the brain, can reparative surgical therapies to extirpate religion from the person be far behind?  Or maybe compulsory gene therapies?

Elimination of religion beliefs?

How does one eliminate religious beliefs from a business?  Don't these numbskulls know that a business is just people?  It doesn't matter what legal fiction is used to explain the tax planning or estate planning or asset protection strategies are involved in making the business legal, a business is just people.

Remember Aaron and Jack.

They're your neighbors and might be your friends and, you never know, they might just be you.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Aaron Klein, the Oregon baker:

Concerning Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker:

$135K for refusing to eat the pork sacrificed to the image of Epiphanes?

Re-education programs?

Assuming the research is accurate and religion is actually centered in a particular part of the brain, can reparative surgical therapies to extirpate religion from the person be far behind?  Or maybe compulsory gene therapies?

Elimination of religion beliefs?

How does one eliminate religious beliefs from a business?  Don't these numbskulls know that a business is just people?  It doesn't matter what legal fiction is used to explain the tax planning or estate planning or asset protection strategies are involved in making the business legal, a business is just people.

Remember Aaron and Jack.

They're your neighbors and might be your friends and, you never know, they might just be you.

 

The "re-education program" is especially alarming to me. Very reminiscent of Nazi and Communist regimes. 

What is happening to our country?

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You're defending discrimination against a long-suffering and persecuted minority. That's what's indefensible.

Ridiculous.

There are bullies here, but the conscientious objectors ain't them.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Have you missed the fact, mentioned repeatedly here, that he offered to sell them anything else in the store, including, according to what he said on one talk show, a cake?

As I said earlier, that strikes me as an odd way to express discrimination. 

What about the analogy that T-Shirt drew about his refusal to sell shirts that bear offensive messages? Is he discriminating against people who want to parade around with obscenity or sacrilege on their clothing? He'll sell them any other kind of shirt in his stock but won't trade in products that offend his values. 

Offering to sell them something they don't want isn't particularly magnanimous.

The t-shirt analogy is absurd. If the guy already sold those t-shirts to other people but refused to sell to a certain class, that's discrimination. The couple trying to buy the wedding cake don't seem to have been requiring any kind of change to the product. They just wanted the cake. They don't appear to have been requesting any changes to the product that would make the product offensive (like the silly t-shirt analogy). They simply wanted the cake, the same way others had it, the same way the baker sold to others.

Imagine walking into an ice cream shop. You ask for one of their special Sundaes made to order but the owner sees your BYU hat and refuses to sell you a sundae because he finds Mormonism morally reprehensible. But agrees to sell you a fudge bar. Would that offer of a lesser product, one you didn't want, make him less discriminatory?

Don't bother answering. There's no point.