Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

buttpirates vs fundamentalistsFollow

#1 Mar 30 2015 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Cook wrote an op-ed piece. It is not terrible, or wrong, but does not add anything new.

I was, however, genuinely surprised by the level of pandering displayed by Pence. It is kinda hard to support Republicans when they support something silly like this.

I toyed with the idea of putting random 'No christians' signs on some stores, but I am not a ****, so I decided against it.

In all seriousness, is Pence in some sort of trouble that he has to dance like this? I thought IN repubs grabbed all the power that mattered there.

Just weird
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Mar 30 2015 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Last I heard, Pence was still toying with a presidential run so that's reason enough right there. Plus Indiana has an open senate seat in 2016 so the less mobilization of the left-leaning people, the better for the Republicans.

Good ole Mayor Emanuel was using it as an excuse to poach businesses and convention bookings from Indiana to Chicago although I doubt that itself is reason to panic. Illinois does have a religious freedom law passed back in the 90's, but it also has legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals so the "But Illinois has it too!" defense doesn't hold up.

Edit: Charles Barkley is calling for the Final Four to be held somewhere besides Indianapolis which would be a big embarrassment if it was to happen. I doubt it will (not that I follow college basketball) but just one more bit of negative press.

Edited, Mar 30th 2015 11:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Mar 31 2015 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I like that the people pushing for religious freedom are basically the same people that are immediately up in arms when another's religion wants something.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Mar 31 2015 at 8:22 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I never would have thought that "religious freedom" would mean "freedom to cite religion to justify bigotry".

Oh, wait, that's the basic tenet of religion. Carry on...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5 Mar 31 2015 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Wouldn't this law also allow Muslims to behead infidels?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#6 Mar 31 2015 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Pence held a news conference today saying that he was pushing for legislation this week clarifying that the law does not give businesses the right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Mar 31 2015 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Did anyone think to ask him what it DOES do, then?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Mar 31 2015 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's the beauty of it. It doesn't do anything!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 31 2015 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Pence held a news conference today saying that he was pushing for legislation this week clarifying that the law does not give businesses the right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds.
Gay Wedding Cake for all!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Mar 31 2015 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Gay Wedding Beefcake for all!

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Mar 31 2015 at 11:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Wouldn't this law also allow Muslims to behead infidels?


Is that a problem if it's restricted to certain states, or QC?
#12 Mar 31 2015 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
I was under the impression that restaurants, etc that would refuse service to gays were already doing that.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#13 Mar 31 2015 at 5:09 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I like that the people pushing for religious freedom are basically the same people that are immediately up in arms when another's religion wants something.
#14 Mar 31 2015 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Pence held a news conference today saying that he was pushing for legislation this week clarifying that the law does not give businesses the right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds.
Gay Wedding Cake for all!


I think the point that many are missing (and perhaps the law didn't clarify either) is that the distinction is over "serving" versus "participating". If a gay couple walks into a bakery and buys a cake, no one's going to care, and no one's going to deny them service. But if they ask the baker to make a custom cake for their wedding, complete with decorations of the groom/groom (or bride/bride), and perhaps including delivering it to the reception, they're now asking the baker to participate in the wedding. I think that's a reasonable point at which someone can say no on religious grounds.

I'm going to point out (as I have in a few threads) that liberals tend to look at the people affected by something, decide if they like or dislike that group, and then pick a position based on that. Conservatives tend to look at the action being taken, decide if they like or dislike the action, and pick a position based on that. A conservative isn't basing it on the customer being gay or straight, but what the customer is asking them to do. The baker or florist in question isn't demanding that homosexuality be made illegal. He's not demanding that gay people be put in jail for being gay. He's not demanding that gay weddings be illegal either, subject to police raids and arrests for anyone involved. He's just asking that he not be forced by the law to participate in said wedding if he has a moral objection to it. Which seems reasonable IMO.

If someone from the **** industry commissioned a cake for a **** industry party, no one would question a baker who views pornography as sinful refusing to make a cake for the event, complete with ***** and ****** decorations and sex toys, right? Or if someone asked a Muslim baker to make a cake with an image of Muhammad on it, no one would argue it's discrimination if he refuses, right? Or if they demand that a Jewish deli make and serve ham sandwiches. Same deal. It's not the identity of the people that matters, but the action you are asking the other person to do.

It's honestly a silly thing (or should be), except that it seems as though recently groups of people are running around deliberately doing those sorts of things, with the intent of creating the whole "OMG! It's discrimination!!!" claim. It's how we get a gay couple that just happens to run to the one baker who has a strong religious opposition to gay marriage in town and decide that this one person and only this one person must provide a cake for their wedding. It's contrived outrage over a situation that could be much more easily managed if people would just take a few seconds to respect that other people have a right to disagree with them about something, and then just move on with their lives.

But that doesn't create nearly as much outrage, does it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Mar 31 2015 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or if someone asked a Muslim baker to make a cake with an image of Muhammad on it, no one would argue it's discrimination if he refuses, right? Or if they demand that a Jewish deli make and serve ham sandwiches.
What kind of retard goes into a Muslim bakery and asks for a Muhammad cake or a Jewish deli and asks for a ham sandwich? Now ask how many people go into a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes and asks for a wedding cake. I get that you're preprogrammed to respond a certain way, which is specifically why I made a comment about gay wedding cakes, but the least you could do is not lick windows.

Edited, Mar 31st 2015 8:05pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Mar 31 2015 at 6:22 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Quote:
What kind of ****** goes into a Muslim bakery and asks for a Muhammad cake or a Jewish deli and asks for a ham sandwich? Now ask how many people go into a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes and asks for a wedding cake. I get that you're preprogrammed to respond a certain way, which is specifically why I made a comment about gay wedding cakes, but the least you could do is not lick windows.


Even if people did do those things, the cakes themselves are not against their religion. It's a cake. They are not asking for cakes picturing homosexual activities. So, to the baker, it's no different. Furthermore, the ham scenario fails because they don't sell ham at all. That's a big difference between not selling ham at all and not selling ham for a g@y wedding. If the homosexuals were asking a bakery that doesn't make wedding cakes, to make a wedding cake and the bakery refused, then you would have a point. It then would be similar to your ham scenario.
#17 Mar 31 2015 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
[quote=gbaji]He's just asking that he not be forced by the law to participate in said wedding if he has a moral objection to it. Which seems reasonable IMO./quote]
A lovely way of saying "He wants his discrimination protected by law" Might as well call it what it is.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Mar 31 2015 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Pence held a news conference today saying that he was pushing for legislation this week clarifying that the law does not give businesses the right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds.
Gay Wedding Cake for all!


It's honestly a silly thing (or should be), except that it seems as though recently groups of people are running around deliberately doing those sorts of things, with the intent of creating the whole "OMG! It's discrimination!!!" claim. It's how we get a *** couple that just happens to run to the one baker who has a strong religious opposition to *** marriage in town and decide that this one person and only this one person must provide a cake for their wedding. It's contrived outrage over a situation that could be much more easily managed if people would just take a few seconds to respect that other people have a right to disagree with them about something, and then just move on with their lives.

But that doesn't create nearly as much outrage, does it?


*shrug* If the guy/girl sells cake, then he/she should be able to sell said cake to the gays too. How is it not a case of discrimination when a guy can tell you no cake for you just because he sees you as a buttpirate?

I am not outraged. I am genuinely confused; and for the record, I am mostly confused more about Pence stance than religious tards, mostly.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#19 Mar 31 2015 at 7:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or if someone asked a Muslim baker to make a cake with an image of Muhammad on it, no one would argue it's discrimination if he refuses, right? Or if they demand that a Jewish deli make and serve ham sandwiches.
What kind of retard goes into a Muslim bakery and asks for a Muhammad cake or a Jewish deli and asks for a ham sandwich?


The same kind of idiot who goes to a christian owned bakery and demands that they make a wedding cake for their same sex wedding. Was this confusing to you?

Quote:
Now ask how many people go into a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes and asks for a wedding cake.


Probably pretty similar to the number of people who walk into a deli and order a ham sandwich. And who might then be upset to realize that the owners are Jewish and wont serve ham. The answer, is the same in both cases: Go to a different deli/bakery. It's not rocket science. It's only a problem if you insist on making it a problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Mar 31 2015 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The same kind of idiot who goes to a christian owned bakery and demands that they make a wedding cake for their same *** wedding. Was this confusing to you?
Except it wasn't a Christian Bakery. It was a bakery that happened to be owned by a Christian. His business was making cakes, not Christian Cakes. Was this confusing to you?
gbaji wrote:
Probably pretty similar to the number of people who walk into a deli and order a ham sandwich.
This is really what you're going to try to hang your entire argument on? It's called a Business Model, dingleberry. You don't go to a Jewish Deli expecting ham because that's not what they sell. You're arguing that you'd bitch to a hot dog cart for not rotating your tires. If it were a deli that happened to hire someone that's Jewish, they'd have to either make you the sandwich or pass it over to someone else that would have to, but they wouldn't be able to deny you the sandwich itself because that's the business they're in.

Your programming seriously needs some updates.
gbaji wrote:
Probably pretty similar to the number of people who walk into a deli and order a ham sandwich.
I have to mock you twice for this: So your answer is zero. Zero people go into a Jewish Deli asking for a ham sandwich.

Edited, Mar 31st 2015 9:25pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Mar 31 2015 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or if someone asked a Muslim baker to make a cake with an image of Muhammad on it, no one would argue it's discrimination if he refuses, right? Or if they demand that a Jewish deli make and serve ham sandwiches.
What kind of retard goes into a Muslim bakery and asks for a Muhammad cake or a Jewish deli and asks for a ham sandwich?


The same kind of idiot who goes to a christian owned bakery and demands that they make a wedding cake for their same *** wedding. Was this confusing to you?


How is it confusing to you and why the **** do I have to check shop's current owner's religious upbringing, denomination and current level of piety just to get a cake? I am not gay, but if I was I would be tad annoyed. I just want the damn cake. Wedding is sufficiently stressful by itself.

Edited, Mar 31st 2015 9:24pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#22 Mar 31 2015 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
What kind of ****** goes into a Muslim bakery and asks for a Muhammad cake or a Jewish deli and asks for a ham sandwich? Now ask how many people go into a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes and asks for a wedding cake. I get that you're preprogrammed to respond a certain way, which is specifically why I made a comment about *** wedding cakes, but the least you could do is not lick windows.


Even if people did do those things, the cakes themselves are not against their religion. It's a cake. They are not asking for cakes picturing homosexual activities.


If they're asking for a cake with two little groom figures on top, they are.

Quote:
Furthermore, the ham scenario fails because they don't sell ham at all.


Deli's do. A deli owned by a Jewish family doesn't. It's generally what defines a deli as a "Jewish deli". You get that, right? And most Jewish deli's don't actually say "Jewish deli" out front. You walk in and order a ham sandwich and they tell you that they don't serve ham because it's against their religious beliefs. Similarly, one might walk into a bakery owned by a devout Christian and not figure out that the don't want to make wedding cakes for same sex weddings until you ask them to and they say no.

Again, if you just walked into the store and asked for a cake. Or even a wedding cake, they owners have no reason to know or care about your sexual orientation. It's only when the wedding cake has two grooms or two brides on it that the maker of the cake may take offense and choose not to make it. And again, it's not "making a cake" that is the issue. It's "participating in a gay wedding" that is.

I guess my issue with this is where you think the dividing line should be then. Because the exact same legal argument you have to make to force a baker to make a cake with a design clearly intended for a same sex wedding would also require a baker to make a cake with an image of Muhammad on it. We could argue that the ham sandwich thing is a step removed, but just a step. How about a pharmacy that doesn't carry birth control? Would you accept the argument that "we don't carry that product, but carry other health related products". Or would you argue that because they carry any health related products, they must carry birth control? I'm guessing the latter, right? So how is that different than requiring a deli that makes sandwiches to carry ham so that customers can order ham sandwiches?

It's not. Legally you are arguing that if you can define something as "discrimination" at all, that you can force a business owner to do that thing they don't want to do. The problem is that all choices are a form of discrimination. If I choose to sell only flavors x, y, and z in my icecream parlor, it's technically discrimination against all other flavors. So if you present some statistics that show that one legged midgets prefer one of the missing flavors disproportionately to the rest of the population and thus not carrying that flavor represents discrimination against one legged midgets, does that mean I must sell that flavor? That's pretty ridiculous.

I just think we're chasing down a rabbit hole with that type of logic. It makes much more sense to just allow business owners to choose what products they want to sell and what activities they are willing to engage in and leave it at that. Barring some kind of monopoly situation which may prevent some products or activities from being supported in an area at all, there's no problem that needs to be solved here. If someone chooses to lose business because of their religious (or any) beliefs, that's their choice.

Edited, Mar 31st 2015 6:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Mar 31 2015 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
How is it confusing to you and why the **** do I have to check shop's current owner's religious upbringing, denomination and current level of piety just to get a cake? I am not ***, but if I was I would be tad annoyed. I just want the **** cake. Wedding is sufficiently stressful by itself.


So what? If you walk into a sporting goods store and they don't sell something you want, do you demand that they carry it? Or do you just go to another store? I'm not sure what the problem is here. You're judging the situation different entirely because there's an identity group argument being made. But that's a crappy reason to take a position. If it's wrong for your business not to provide services specific to one group, then you must argue it's wrong to do the same for all groups. So I can walk into a black owned bakery and demand that he make a cake with KKK imagery on it (maybe with a black guy hanging from a tree, with a group of white hooded fellows standing around and the words "All ******* must die" on it) and sue him if he doesn't make it?

Do you really want to go down this route? Really? Or should we maybe just allow people to make their own decisions about things like this? Silly me, I'm gong to take the latter position.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Mar 31 2015 at 7:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
So what? If you walk into a sporting goods store and they don't sell something you want, do you demand that they carry it? Or do you just go to another store?

You walk into a sporting goods store, and they do sell what you want, but they won't sell it to you because you are going to use it to go gay rock climbing.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#25 Mar 31 2015 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
How is it confusing to you and why the **** do I have to check shop's current owner's religious upbringing, denomination and current level of piety just to get a cake? I am not ***, but if I was I would be tad annoyed. I just want the **** cake. Wedding is sufficiently stressful by itself.


So what? If you walk into a sporting goods store and they don't sell something you want, do you demand that they carry it? Or do you just go to another store? I'm not sure what the problem is here. You're judging the situation different entirely because there's an identity group argument being made. But that's a crappy reason to take a position. If it's wrong for your business not to provide services specific to one group, then you must argue it's wrong to do the same for all groups. So I can walk into a black owned bakery and demand that he make a cake with KKK imagery on it (maybe with a black guy hanging from a tree, with a group of white hooded fellows standing around and the words "All ******* must die" on it) and sue him if he doesn't make it?

Do you really want to go down this route? Really? Or should we maybe just allow people to make their own decisions about things like this? Silly me, I'm gong to take the latter position.


Yes. However, and focus because this is the important part, the sporting store carries the stuff I want; they just don't want me, and people like me, to buy stuff from them. Can you see the difference?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#26 Mar 31 2015 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

To everyone saying that the law allows business to discriminate against Christians, Muslims, etc: The federal civil rights act prohibits that already. And federal law trumps local laws. People have the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The key is that only those explicit classes are protected. That's why this law seems to solely target homosexuals...LGBT hasn't been given the same protected status in an amendment or major federal law.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 325 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (325)