Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suggest you take yours. Maybe you won't feel quite so embarrassed.
What's that you were saying about taking my medication?
Grow up little one .... you SPECIFICALLY claimed that this case was about a wedding cake for dogs .. and of course, nothing could be futher from the truth.
The great court case over a wedding cake for dogs .... hahahahaa
Sad ... it really shows immaturity and insecurity to be incapable of simply admitting you made a mistake.
Grow up little one .... you SPECIFICALLY claimed that this case was about a wedding cake for dogs .. and of course, nothing could be futher from the truth.
The great court case over a wedding cake for dogs .... hahahahaa
Sad ... it really shows immaturity and insecurity to be incapable of simply admitting you made a mistake.
I never said any such thing. I said he made a cake for a dog wedding. Read my post again.
The baker approves of dog weddings, but draws the line at gay weddings, because it offends his religious sensibilities.
I never said this particular case was about a dog wedding, although the judge did take the fact that the baker had no qualms against baking a wedding cake for dogs into consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Man and woman only? For the 89th time, he made a cake for a DOG WEDDING! Why do you keep ignoring that? That's not at odds with Christian beliefs? Give me a break!
Sad ... it really shows immaturity and insecurity to be incapable of simply admitting you made a mistake
Last edited by weltschmerz; 12-10-2013 at 02:33 AM..
And you still won't address the issue, but instead you're telling me I should take my medication, accuse me of being immature and not being able to admit to making a mistake.
What does my personal psychological evaluation of people with extreme religious and political views have to do with my level of tolerance for said people? What does "tolerance" mean to you? Do you wish to be able to do and say as you please with no repercussions whatsoever? Do you wish to remain free from any and all criticism of your actions and beliefs, even if those actions and beliefs are used to support discrimination and violence toward your fellow human beings? Does anything less than absolute acceptance of your views and behaviors count as 'intolerance'? What is it you want from us, exactly? To shut up and stand idly by while watching you commit one social injustice after another and never challenge you in any way? Sorry, but that's not going to happen.
What's funny is that this is exactly what liberals do want for themselves. Liberals suggested getting the FCC to shut down Fox News. Liberals support the fairness doctrine. Liberals pass hate speech laws and speech codes. Liberals try to disrupt conservative speaking engagements. Liberals tear down flyers for conservative meetings. Liberals grade down conservative students. Liberals target conservative groups with the IRS. Liberals use accusations of racism and sexism to try to marginalize people who don't agree with them.
What do conservatives do to try to silence liberals? Nothing.
Quote:
Humorously, (or perhaps sadly, I am uncertain which) your very post itself is actually a perfect example of not only the intolerance but the hypocrisy of people with far right-wing and/or extremist religious views. You demand not only the right to be as intolerant as you wish, but you also demand that we accept this implicitly!
Yes, that's called freedom. Freedom involves letting other people disagree with your views. It means if someone doesn't want to sell you a wedding cake, then you go get one somewhere else. You don't sue them to force them to make you a wedding cake. You're calling someone else an intolerant hypocrite because he wants to let people make the cakes they want for the customers they want. Intolerance of someone due to their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation is morally reprehensible. But intolerance of someone due to their political or religious beliefs is A-OK. That's ridiculous.
Quote:
If we refuse to do so, we are being intolerant! Sorry, but I'm not buying into this, and neither is any other person with an ounce of sense. There are different types and levels of intolerance. Some people's intolerance has the capacity, and sometimes even the intent, of causing real physical, psychological, financial and social harm to innocent people. The type of intolerance I hold is intolerance for such hateful, harmful beliefs. If you don't like that, tough. We are under NO obligation whatsoever to be tolerant of your intolerance. Period.
Your self righteousness in your supposed tolerance as you advocate forcing people to operate their businesses according to the standards you want is disingenuous.
I agree that government should not be allowed to discriminate. But forcing private individuals not to discriminate by force of law is simply you practicing your own intolerance. The equal protection clause is government overreach. Bigots should receive the force of social disapproval, with the loss of customers and public ill will that comes along with it. But it shouldn't be the government's job to pick and choose who private individuals do business with. And in wanting the government to do that, you are the one whose intolerance is causing real harm to innocent people. You are forcing people to violate their religious principles.
Wow! You really seem to have a thing for murder, violence and death. First the cyanide in the cake and now shooting judges. Nice going.
Love your morals, by the way. We should all strive to emulate you.
I suggest you take yours. Maybe you won't feel quite so embarrassed.
Just two days after the owner of a Lakewood, Colo. bakery appeared in court to defend himself against charges that he that he discriminated against a gay couple last July when he refused to bake a cake for their wedding, a civil judge found the owner guilty of unlawful discrimination.
Judge Robert Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts announced the decision Friday, reports KDVR, noting that because the Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, previously made cakes for the wedding of two dogs, his claims that a wedding between two men contradicted his religious beliefs didn't hold up. Colo. Bakery's Refusal to Bake Gay Wedding Cake Is Discrimination, Judge Rules | Advocate.com#
while a dog wedding is a laughingstock god has no problem with 2 dogs having sexual relations.
God has a major problem with 2 members of the same sex having sexual relations.
This gay terrorist judge doesn't understand religion yet he "ruled" what is and what is not required under religion.
Shouldn't every single liberal have a problem with this judge; courts not deciding religious law, is how they classically understood the meaning of the establishment clause.
It depends on the cause. Standing up and showing bravery in the face of danger or death in a battle to right a terrible wrong or achieve some kind of social justice is one thing. Doing so because you don't want to follow your state's anti-discrimination laws is not commendable at all. I would also like to clarify that I do not feel any kind of general disgust at the thought of religious people following their beliefs. While I don't agree with the concept of believing anything on faith alone, I do not find it disgusting, merely unfortunate and inadvisable. The disgust sets in when people begin using their beliefs as justification for assault, for murder, for discrimination, and for causing general suffering among people who have done nothing to them. It is especially disgusting when they don't even follow their own beliefs with any kind of consistency, but instead pick and choose which tenets they will follow and which tenets they won't based on their own personal prejudices.
And WHO decides what is a terrible wrong? You? People have been using religion to as justification for MANY things throughour the years. Doesn't mean it's right, and in some cases, doesn't mean it's wrong.
Quote:
First, nobody is forcing the baker to make a cake. If they don't want to follow the laws of their state, they can pay the fines (should they be levied) or close their business. In my opinion, they don't have enough good sense to be running one in the first place.
Back again to, in YOUR opinion. MY opinion is, if you don't want to make/sell me a cake, someone else does.
Quote:
Second, in situations like this, a person's motivations for their actions must be taken into account, as well as their whether or not their stated reasons for behaving the way they do are consistent with their past actions and choices. In this case, the baker has on several occasions baked cakes for unbiblical and even blatantly sinful people or events. In light of this, we can clearly determine that the baker is not particularly concerned with their religious morality, but rather has a personal issue with homosexuals and is discriminating against them for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons.
AND? It's THEIR business.
Quote:
Third, anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason. Allowing this business to discriminate at will would set a terrible precedent. If we allow one business to do so, why not another? And another? And eventually why not all of them? Soon you end up with a situation where certain classes of people cannot, or cannot easily, find and receive the services they need to go about their lives and conduct their daily business without undue inconvenience and duress.
Many businesses legally discriminate, on a daily basis. they wont hire felons, they won't hire, (Or provide credit), to people with bad credit histories. Credit, that's a big one. I had a place deny me credit, because 4 years ago someone opened a credit card in my name, and charged it up and didn't pay it. I got MOST of that cleared up, and there is a statement on my credit report, if you pull the WHOLE report and care to read it, but it still shows up and I have had credit denied to me because of it, even though I have held a platinum Visa card now for almost a decade. Discriminatory? Yes.
Quote:
For these reasons and many others, people who refuse to be socially responsible and just must be compelled to do so or face consequences, for the greater good of society as a whole.
And here we go, do as I want, or I will force you to.
I think the bakery did wrong, but I also feel it's wrong to force them. The end result is, they won't do as superb of a job as they would do for someone else, because in THIS case, they won't care about the quality of their work. That's what happens when you FORCE someone to do what YOU want them to do.
Does it ... ummm ... lay long on the table, or does it stick up in the air?
Where can I order one?
Not sure where you can order one, but I am thinking when they are young and fresh they would tend to point up in the air. As the cake ages it probably rises into the air less until the point it is so old it does just lay there on the table.
Man and woman only? For the 89th time, he made a cake for a DOG WEDDING! Why do you keep ignoring that? That's not at odds with Christian beliefs?
Give me a break!
Was the dog wedding conducted in a house of God and exchanging vows? Good grief, you don't even know specifics about this occurrence. It could have just been two dogs dressed up in a tux and bridal gown as a joke for all you know.
She didn't come up with it, the baker did. It was an example given to show the baker's hypocrisy in his dealings with his customers. He felt perfectly fine baking cakes for dogs, for divorces, and for many other non or even unbiblical things. The man even had tatoos on his body, which is strictly prohibited according to biblical law. It was only when those evil gays showed up that he suddenly became very religious. As is typical with these types of people.
Your argument fails on several accounts.
1. If you are going to claim tattoos are a sin then you might as well be claiming that it is a sin for Christians to not sacrifice lambs or observe the Passover. Mosaic law does not apply to Christians. Anyone who makes this argument is completely clueless on the actual purpose of the OT law and the reason for Christ's sacrifice.
2. If you are going to claim the man is hypocrite for baking cakes for divorcees then we are all hypocrites. Everyone is a sinner so he would have to exclude EVERY customer to meet your insane requirements.
3. Baking a cake for gays is different because you are aiding and assisting in a sinful act to occur.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
