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.
Should? In what sense? In a legal sense? Moral
sense? Good customer service sense? What do you mean?
All three.
Quote:
Yeah, let's ignore the law since it gets in the way of the story you want to
sell.
If we are supposed to just assume "the law" is automatically right, by default, no questions asked, and go from there, than again I ask, what exactly is the point of this thread? Is it just an announcement?
Quote:
They refused service as soon as they identified the orientation of the customer.
You can have your own opinion on the matter, but you don't get to make up your
own facts.
They refused service after they identified that the cake is meant for a gay wedding. As far as that goes, I have no problem with a private business that wants to discriminate against anyone for any reason. If that's their business model that they think will be the most profitable than have at it. We'll see how far they make it.
Do you? Given the quantity of holes I have punched in it, errors corrected, lies highlighted, misrepresentations straighted out, it might be time you listen to your own rhetoric, and take on board the feedback it has been getting, and realize that the less honest parts of it.... no one so far has actually bought into it except you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I am under the belief that secularism has rotted a growing hatred towards Christianity.
I am under the belief that this is just a persecution narrative you have built up to substitute for any actual arguments against secularism. You clearly do not like secularism. You want things like Exemption from Specific Laws for Specific religions. And you can not get it. And rather than acknowledge your lack of ANY applicable arguments, you instead construct this persecution narrative that everyone hates Christianity, which you feed with political spin and propaganda and little facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The debate is the morality of such law.
Then HAVE that debate by all means. The problem is you have not been doing so. You have been selling this narrative that the law is persecuting Christians. You have been moaning when the law is applied to Christians. You have been declaring you think the Religious should be given special privileges to ignore this law. And much much more.
Actual debates about the quality, implementation and morality of the law itself however... you have offered little to none. And as I have pointed out on numerous occasions.... you might find I agree with a VAST quantity of your issues with the law itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But you stubbornly refuse to do it probably because you know it is wrong to be forced by the government to perform a action against your morals.
Not really. I think this "forced" narrative is just more of your spin. People know what the law is when they decided to open their own business. They are not being forced to do anything. They willingly CONSENTED to it the day they opened their doors to the public. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to open a business. They made that decision alone. And they did it in full knowledge of the laws they would have to follow having made that choice.
So drop your "forced" narrative. They brought it on themselves, willingly, openly, and in full knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
why not explain exactly where I am wrong?
It is funny how you only reply to the posts where people give you these "barbs" and call you names or insult you. And you moan and moan about how they should explain how and where you are wrong.
Yet when posters like me explain at length where you are wrong, without any personal insults or comments on your educational history.... you simply dodge and ignore those posts.
So really you are doing nothing more than stacking the deck here. You ignore the posts that do not fit this persecution narrative of people insulting you, and you reply disproportionately to the ones that do fit it. And as I keep pointing out, this transparent tactic is not being bought into by anyone else but you yourself. The narrative you are trying, simply is not convincing anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It's like the pro fisherman telling the rookie, "son you don't know how to fish! Now I'm not going to tell you what you are doing wrong, but I will keep reminding you that you can't fish!"
No it is like the rookie going around crying and moaning at the people who tell him he can not fish.... and running away ignoring the kind and patient pros who actually offer to show him. THAT is what you are doing. Daily. And willfully. Entirely premeditated to feed a narrative you sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
So you just make up claims about people you don't know when you don't like their opinion? Brilliant strategy sir!
Says the guy who dodged a number of my posts by simply declaring I was not "local" enough to be taken seriously or not american enough. Amazing how you pull others up on doing things you do with wanton abandon every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Well obviously they have some kind of legal ground to fight this otherwise a lawyer wouldn't take the case.
That is a bit of a naive statement there. Lawyers take cases all the time, even if they think there is no hope in winning it. For the simple reason that they get paid either way. You might benefit from an overhaul of how you think the legal system works on quite a few levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Do you believe the 1st amendment is an important right? After all, it is #1.
You might want to learn the difference between "first" and "Number 1". The former is relevant to chronological order. The latter is a reference to importance or stature. They are not the same thing.
That said however, I have not seen a single person on this thread who is not invested in the importance of this amendment. The fact is however they understand what it is and means, you do not. Having a different interpretation on what it means and what it does.... is NOT the same as not thinking it important. So it would seem we are getting more of your political spin propaganda points scoring here in place of any actual arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Apparently you think our freedom of religion should end the moment we walk out of the church doors.
I have not seen a single person suggest such a thing. You are putting words in peoples mouths again I see. All the while moaning on the thread that people keep making up lies about YOU. Once again, one rule for you, one for everyone else. You get to moan when people lie about you, but you get to make things up about others with wanton and fetid abandon in a contrived and premeditated manner designed to feed a narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Must be paranoid to always assume everyone is lying until proven otherwise.
Nothing at all paranoid about thinking people are innocent until proven guilty. If you want to re-word that to "everyone is lying until proven otherwise" to feed your narrative, so be it, but you will fail to change the real meaning of the concept just by re-wording it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
My quest continues to find just one, just one atheist who is nice and friendly to Christians.
And yet you simply ignore my posts which do not contain one insult, one comment about lead paint, one disparagement about what your education was growing up, your genetic lineage, or anything else of that sort whatsoever. You whinge about the posts you think are attacking you, and you simply ignore the posts that are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
We're not the ones going around spreading diseases. In case you need a reminder of facts in the REAL WORLD:
So you have returned to your distortion of HIV statistics which I have corrected you numerous times in the past. The figures you quote are not representative of homosexuals, they are related to a particular sub group of MSM. Entirely different. Just like your false claim to be quoting statistics for Holland when in fact you quoted very specific statistics related to very particular aspects of just Amsterdam. You distort figures willfully by claiming to be showing statistics about something, but actually only presenting statistics related to a very cherry picked sub group of that something.
We already know that anal sex, especially if not practiced in an informed, safe, non-promiscuous way, is the top tier of risky sexual behavior. NO ONE denies this that I have seen. But you use this to feed a propaganda narrative. A narrative you only manage to feed by attempting (and failing embarrassingly and consistently) to make anal sex and homosexuality synonymous. When they are no such thing. It is A) a heterosexual practice too and B) much more of a minority practice in homosexuality than you admit or know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And once again, your distort reality to fit your false perception.
No that is you, which is obvious from the remarkable consistency with which I find it in your posts, call you on it, correct your distortions, and get entirely ignored and dodged. But YET AGAIN I have to highlight where you accuse others of doing the things you do with wanton abandon. Buy a mirror sometime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You really need to get out in the real world more. Anyone can clearly see this forum is heavily slated towards anti-Christian sentiment
No it is not. And most of the people disagreeing with your propaganda narratives are THEMSELVES christians. And not even of one type. You have fundamentalists doing so, very tame brands of Christian doing so, and some of our more nonsense new agers doing so. The only reason you think this forum is anti christian is you subscribe to a highly minority brand of Christianity that is abhorrent to even most Christians on here, let alone atheists. All of which, as usual, feeds into your feelings of feux persecution.
Then that is another story, I have to admit. But, this discussion has become more about the practice of denying cakes for gay weddings.
After all, the title of the thread puts emphasis on the fact that the "anti-gay bakers have to pay out".....
If this thread were about the actual details of this case, it wouldn't matter what the bakers think about gay people and thus wouldn't have been mentioned in the title.
So you think this discussion is about myths or lies?
So you think this discussion is about myths or lies?
Admittedly I didn't delve in to the fine details of this case specifically. Perhaps these people were entitled to some type of monetary compensation for reasons other than the fact that they were denied a cake for their gay wedding.
However, that's the aspect of the case that I am debating.
Couldn't agree more. As a big proponent of the Free Market System, I think you should have every legal Right to take your little plan and put it in motion, and see how far you get with it.
It's likely you wouldn't stay in business long, and that's the beauty in the free market system. Businesses that offer inadequate or undesirable products, services, or policies will be weeded out, no intervention by the government required.
You sound very much like an old John Birch Society member. When I was in junior college we had a John Birch Society spokesperson in a convocation. His big thing was government should stay out of EVERYTHING.
I asked him if that meant if he had a wheat farm and right next to him I decided to raise grasshoppers if that would be acceptable. He said the government has no place in trying to regulate commerce. I said, "We will then return to the law of the gun." To which he responded, "Maybe."
Government should and MUST regulate so that every single individual is treated EXACTLY the same by persons advertising a PUBLIC commercial establishment. Under a "free" market system, twelve year old boys went down into deep pit coal mines, companies have moved substantial operations overseas because there are no laws regulating them and they can work employees 12 hours a day and fire them for missing even one day, companies routinely over the past twenty years have dropped pension programs--even declared them bankrupt--and almost nobody served a prison term.
If free market systems were all establishments of a hundred people or less, then "free" works. But once we got mega industries (of which Eisenhower warned about during his presidency), then there is nothing free at all except they are free to lie about their products, free to dump employees in most states for any reason whatsoever (including firing people for their sexual orientation--which is NOT protected under federal law), free to jack up prices because there are no mom and pop stores to compete with them.
Like every other economic system, "free" market systems become corrupt--and the one in this nation is beyond many people's capacity to see it.
Want to know how the "free" system is working now? Pharmaceutical giants are buying up smaller companies making generic drugs of the big companies so they can bring the prices on generics back to the same as their brand names. Some people are getting a renewed generic drug that has gone up in price by 400%. Yeah, that's a free market system.
How did the last economic nightmare in this county happen? Oh yeah, banks convinced Congress to lift all the restrictions on how they financed homes and businesses. Congress did---and the banks first took us down (I lost a home in that mess), and then borrowed the money from the Americans they ruined so executives could get their million dollar bonuses while their companies "weathered the storm" that they created.
What is disappointing is that the government almost never sends anyone to jail for doing egregious corporate things. If the bakers had gotten a dozen years in prison you can damn well bet no other bakers would be discriminating against anyone. If a few major corporations who have cheated the government on medicare/medicaid ended up going for ten year stretches instead of paying a "fine" (the cost of doing business to a company), then they would be more interested in following the law.
No, big company or small business, ALL should be required to do business with anyone who walks through their doors. If they don't like it, then they can become a co-op that requires application and membership. They are free to make their own rules then.
I agree, to a point. I advocate a free market system, not an anarchic market system. However, the governments regulation should be very limited in scope and should only be tolerated to the point that it meets a significant public interest.
Quote:
so that every single individual is treated EXACTLY the same
Why do people have to be treated EXACTLY the same? We're talking about private business here, not government. You don't have a legal Right to the services a business in the private sector provides.
Quote:
advertising a PUBLIC commercial establishment.
See, this is where your type gets it wrong. This bakery, is not a PUBLIC establishment. Did the PUBLIC start the business? Give them seed money? Is the business funded with PUBLIC tax dollars? No? Than it's not PUBLIC
( by the way, putting words in all caps doesn't lend any credibility to an argument that is based on a false premise )
Quote:
Under a "free" market system, twelve year old boys went down into deep pit coal
mines,
What a bunch of hyperbole. The government has every Right to establish child labor laws that protect children from this type of thing. The government has a vested public interest in protecting children in that regard, and thus those restrictions are reasonable and meet the burden required of the government to garner a substantial benefit from said laws.
Quote:
), free to jack up prices because there are no mom and pop stores to
compete with them.
They can't "jack up their prices" any more than the laws of supply and demand allow. If people are paying those prices, what's the problem?
Quote:
Want to know how the "free" system is working now? Pharmaceutical giants are
buying up smaller companies making generic drugs of the big companies so they
can bring the prices on generics back to the same as their brand names. Some
people are getting a renewed generic drug that has gone up in price by 400%.
Yeah, that's a free market system.
People are willingly paying those prices, aren't they? So what's your beef? A product, good, or service is only worth what people will pay for it.
Laws like the one we're discussing also inhibit freedom of choice. If I want to buy a cake at a Christian bakery that doesn't serve gay weddings what business is it of the governments? A business like this can only be sustained if there is a big enough market amongst consumers for these type of policies. Take Chick-fil-a for example. Anti-gay bigots rushed there in droves after the owner let his position be known on the issue, so good for him. I guess he has a sustainable business model, much to the chagrin of liberals. I know I won't eat there, nor would I give this bakery my business. I spend my money somewhere that's more in line with my ideals and world view. In other words, I'm able to choose who to give my business to, which is the beauty of the free market.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 07-14-2015 at 04:23 AM..
I agree, to a point. I advocate a free market system, not an anarchic market system. However, the governments regulation should be very limited in scope and should only be tolerated to the point that it meets a significant public interest.
Why do people have to be treated EXACTLY the same? We're talking about private business here, not government. You don't have a legal Right to the services a business in the private sector provides.
See, this is where your type gets it wrong. This bakery, is not a PUBLIC establishment. Did the PUBLIC start the business? Give them seed money? Is the business funded with PUBLIC tax dollars? No? Than it's not PUBLIC
Does the bakery take tax credits and deductions for loss and business expenses? If it does, that is PUBLIC money it takes thereby making it a public business...
It's not like you can save $10,000 a month by whipping up your own version at home.
Those meds aren't free to produce. The research to develop those meds isn't free. The only reason we have some of the best medications is because people are willing to put the work in and do the research, because they will be rewarded handsomely. We start messing with that, and all of a sudden people start to lose their drive and ambition to innovate.
The best Healthcare available isn't free, and it's not a Right. Those who can't afford the best healthcare will not receive the best healthcare. Healthcare is a product, like anything else. Just because peoples lives are on the line doesn't change that fact. Might not be fair, but such is life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28
Does the bakery take tax credits and deductions for loss and business expenses? If it does, that is PUBLIC money it takes thereby making it a public business...
No, it doesn't. Private property Rights still apply. The tax credits and deductions are just a way that the government encourages business and business growth. If the bakery is a "public business", than tell me what government agency pays for it's upkeep? Are the owners government employees? I don't think so.
Those meds aren't free to produce. The research to develop those meds isn't free. The only reason we have some of the best medications is because people are willing to put the work in and do the research, because they will be rewarded handsomely. We start messing with that, and all of a sudden people start to lose their drive and ambition to innovate.
The best Healthcare available isn't free, and it's not a Right. Those who can't afford the best healthcare will not receive the best healthcare. Healthcare is a product, like anything else. Just because peoples lives are on the line doesn't change that fact. Might not be fair, but such is life.
No, it doesn't. Private property Rights still apply. The tax credits and deductions are just a way that the government encourages business and business growth. If the bakery is a "public business", than tell me what government agency pays for it's upkeep? Are the owners government employees? I don't think so.
Then they should refuse the tax breaks and rebates...
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.
