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.
MM is correct. pheteroi was a school principal until retiring recently.
Ok. I don't know who was arguing what, but the defs say 'A school Principal' (teacher) Or a Religious Principle (idea pr doctrine). They are different but related. One is not a misspelling of the other. So, who had it right or wrong I don't know. I'm just providing the info on the difference.
Since we are wandering a bit, my pet peeve is ‘tenant’. That is a perfectly acceptable word in the real estate forum, but in this forum, people are usually referring to ‘tenets’, aka beliefs or principles.
I know, I see that one a lot, too.
Then there are the people who use "mute" for "moot", and the people who say "walla" for "voila", and the people who say "per say" for "per se"...
There is a whole long-running thread on the Writing forum about those things!
I suppose the reason why the Gay Cake is such a contentious issue is because it is in the grey area about your right to swing and the gay nose. In this case, how near the nose you can swing your mitt before it even looks illegal. Going and swinging in the next field (saying being Gay is sin in church) is fine. and standing and looking at the nose, while not swinging (selling a cake to a gay without expressing your disapproval of gays) is also ok.
But refusing the service is one of the points that often comes up - can a person refuse to do their job if it offends their religious beliefs? In law - no. In practice, reasonable accommodation can be made - but it is a concession - not a right.
In government, this was established by the Kim Davis case and by a Registrar here who refused to do same sex -weddings.
Those are 2 completely different issues.
Kim Davis was an elected official, and was an employee of the state. She was required as said employee to do what her employer told her to do. Failure to do so would result in discipline and/or removal from her position. Compare that to the Walgreens employee who refuses to sell contraception. They have no right to do so if their employer tells them to.
The bakers, on the other hand, own their bakery. They get to decide what to sell. They can pick and choose whatever they wish to. They can choose not to participate in a same sex wedding the same way that a Walgreens could choose to not sell contraception. However, if an employee in either place decided to go against their employer's wishes, they would have no right to expect not to be fired.
That's quite simple, really. The fact that people can't comprehend this simple idea is amazing. This country used to be free--and people used to be able to live their lives and do business as they wanted to. Now, if a snowflake gets offended, they must cater to said snowflake at the threat of having their livelihood destroyed.
Ok. I don't know who was arguing what, but the defs say 'A school Principal' (teacher) Or a Religious Principle (idea pr doctrine). They are different but related. One is not a misspelling of the other. So, who had it right or wrong I don't know. I'm just providing the info on the difference.
Gee...this is not so difficult.
In the broad sense, the word principal means the main one. Phetaroi was a principal (in other words, the main professional in the school). Cary Grant was the principal actor in the film. Pepperoni is the principal topping on that pizza.
The word principle means a concept. In Buddhism we operate on the principle of a desire to end suffering. In Christianity they operate on the principle that Jesus was crucified for "our" sins. An atheist operates on the principle that there is no principal, all powerful being.
Kim Davis was an elected official, and was an employee of the state. She was required as said employee to do what her employer told her to do. Failure to do so would result in discipline and/or removal from her position. Compare that to the Walgreens employee who refuses to sell contraception. They have no right to do so if their employer tells them to.
The bakers, on the other hand, own their bakery. They get to decide what to sell. They can pick and choose whatever they wish to. They can choose not to participate in a same sex wedding the same way that a Walgreens could choose to not sell contraception. However, if an employee in either place decided to go against their employer's wishes, they would have no right to expect not to be fired.
That's quite simple, really. The fact that people can't comprehend this simple idea is amazing. This country used to be free--and people used to be able to live their lives and do business as they wanted to. Now, if a snowflake gets offended, they must cater to said snowflake at the threat of having their livelihood destroyed.
Yeah they don't seem to get that this has to do with creating the product itself for a specific type of ceremony vs refusing service solely on the basis that they don't like gay people. When Paula Deen got bad press for some of her past racially insensitive messages, Walmart yanked her products off the shelf. Because they didn't want to support someone who made such comments. They didn't agree with the message just like the baker doesn't agree with the message of creating a cake for a gay wedding.
Kim Davis was an elected official, and was an employee of the state. She was required as said employee to do what her employer told her to do. Failure to do so would result in discipline and/or removal from her position. Compare that to the Walgreens employee who refuses to sell contraception. They have no right to do so if their employer tells them to.
The bakers, on the other hand, own their bakery. They get to decide what to sell. They can pick and choose whatever they wish to. They can choose not to participate in a same sex wedding the same way that a Walgreens could choose to not sell contraception. However, if an employee in either place decided to go against their employer's wishes, they would have no right to expect not to be fired.
That's quite simple, really. The fact that people can't comprehend this simple idea is amazing. This country used to be free--and people used to be able to live their lives and do business as they wanted to. Now, if a snowflake gets offended, they must cater to said snowflake at the threat of having their livelihood destroyed.
They are not different issues. The issue - discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the same. You can ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. The circumtances are indeed, different, which is why (given the concession was accepted - after a couple of spells in jail) the matter - and precedent - is settled.
I would have thought the precedent was set on shop staff, too. They have no right to refuse to sell a product on grounds of religious conviction. Concession could be made by getting some other peron to sell the stuff -just like a Muslim on Checkout who doesn't want to handle bacon. But if because of restrictions, this isn't possible, they should do their job or find another. That is the legal principle and the ruling is that it applies to personally -owned business.
It i rather you who can't see a simple idea - that just because you have a lot of religion -based personal prejudices that sre shared by a large number of people in the country, you should be able to ignorte the law if it cuts across your religious views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Yeah they don't seem to get that this has to do with creating the product itself for a specific type of ceremony vs refusing service solely on the basis that they don't like gay people. When Paula Deen got bad press for some of her past racially insensitive messages, Walmart yanked her products off the shelf. Because they didn't want to support someone who made such comments. They didn't agree with the message just like the baker doesn't agree with the message of creating a cake for a gay wedding.
Now that IS two completely different issues.
It's like that Alabama bod and the accusation of girl -stalking. The law indeed has no ruling on that. Not until a court case and verdict. Innocent until proven guilty. But the fact is that bad publicity can sink your career, even if no court case is ever brought. The fact that the Alabama fellow has a record of bucking federal law on religious grounds, supported by a religion -indoctrinated voting populace means that, since the Pedo -thing has reversed public opinion against him, he ain't getting much sympathy from me.
They are not different issues. The issue - discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the same. You can ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. The circumtances are indeed, different, which is why (given the concession was accepted - after a couple of spells in jail) the matter - and precedent - is settled.
No one is doing that. Assumptions are being made regarding motivation, but that's all they are -- assumptions. No one is telling any gay person they can't be served. This baker in question had previously catered to these particular customers. They did not discriminate against them. It's crazy that people continue to harp on this argument when it's simply not true.
Quote:
I would have thought the precedent was set on shop staff, too. They have no right to refuse to sell a product on grounds of religious conviction. Concession could be made by getting some other peron to sell the stuff -just like a Muslim on Checkout who doesn't want to handle bacon. But if because of restrictions, this isn't possible, they should do their job or find another. That is the legal principle and the ruling is that it applies to personally -owned business.
Does the Muslim own the grocery store? If so, he can decide to simply not offer the product. Do you not understand that point? Otherwise, I agree with you---he/she can go work elsewhere if the job requires it.
Quote:
It i rather you who can't see a simple idea - that just because you have a lot of religion -based personal prejudices that sre shared by a large number of people in the country, you should be able to ignorte the law if it cuts across your religious views.
Again....please stop assigning motive when it doesn't exist. The fact that you continue to return to this argument tells me you simply don't understand it.
So ... now you not only believe that the earth is flat, you also believe that the moon landing was a hoax.
What's next? Aliens at Area 51? That 9/11 was an inside job? Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy? That the world's leaders are all reptilians?
You might as well believe in all them if you're going to believe in one of them because they're all pretty much equally stupid and ridiculous -- well, except the one about reptilians. That one is *slightly* dumber than the rest of them.
Actually, I pretty much know what this is all about.
For instance, I have this friend who has played World of Warcraft -- an online computer game if you're not familiar with it -- for over 13 years now. That's all he plays. World of Warcraft. He plays it on his laptop so he can play it while sitting in front of the television. He can play it at McDonald's. He can play it in bed. He'd even play it in the bath tub if he wasn't worried about dropping his computer into the water.
The point being is that he has become so emotionally invested in the game, has spent so many years playing it that he simply cannot walk away from it. He and I used to play that game together but I walked away from it a decade ago, but he still plays it because he can't let it go.
Same with you and this nonsense about a flat earth. You've become so emotionally invested in this craziness that you can't let it go now. It means that no amount of facts or evidence will ever convince you that you're just dead-bang wrong. In fact, you're SO invested in this silliness that you now have to believe in an ever-increasing number of conspiracy theories just to maintain your delusion that you're right and 99.99999999% of the rest of humanity is wrong.
Now you have to accept the moon hoax conspiracy as truth, as well, despite the FACT that it has been thoroughly and scientifically debunked. Even the Soviets admit we landed on the moon and they had every reason to cry "fake!"
But don't let that stop you. I mean, it's much easier to believe in a truly massive multi-national, global conspiracy of silence that has gone on for at least 500 years than it is to believe the earth is a sphere. Yep. Every astronaut, every NASA employee, every scientist, every analyst, every soldier, every GPS manufacturer, every nuclear ballistic missile designer, every spy plane pilot -- essentially every last person who deals with orbiting satellites and space programs in Russia, Europe, China, India, and Japan, every last person in the military who sends up, maintains, and uses spy satellites, every person employed by a communications company that deals with communications satellites, every radar operator on board a warship who understands how the earth's curvature blocks radar line of sight -- where am I at, now, population-wise?
It has to be at LEAST 20 million people by now -- and that's only counting the people who have been alive in the past 50 years. Never mind scientists going as far back as Galileo who all kept this astounding secret.
And not one single whistleblower. Nope, not a one. No one has ever come forward and said, "Yeah, I worked on the Apollo program in NASA and I'm here to tell you that it was all faked." Not a single deathbed confession. Nothing.
Nor has anyone ever come forward and said, "Yeah, I helped maintain Verizon's satellite fleet and I know for a fact that the earth is flat" nor has anyone from the scientific community come forward and said, "I can't keep doing this -- it's time every scientist admitted that the earth is flat because only then can science progress!"
Nope. No one.
This is easily the biggest, longest-running, most wide-spread conspiracy of silence EVER in all of human history.
And despite how utterly ridiculous this is considering that the U.S. Air Force can't even keep a stealth bomber secret from the public for any longer than 7 to 10 years, you'll sit there and continue to believe that tens of millions of people actually knew the earth was flat -- they would have to have known in order to do their jobs -- and yet kept silent about it.
Instead of saying, "Yeah, that is a bit foolish, isn't it," you'll say, "Yeah! That's exactly what happened. They all kept silent!"
Because your emotional investment in this conspiracy is so profound that you'll say or believe anything in order to keep it going.
Just like my friend playing World of Warcraft for 13 years.
I really don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to this nonsense -- I mean, I ridicule religion all the time, but being a flat earther -- well, that is just screaming to be mocked and made fun of. Nothing anyone says will get you to come out of that fugue you're in so, yeah, why waste another keystroke on this.
You're are definitely emotionally invested...otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to put a smile om my face. Thank you. Have a blessed day.
You're are definitely emotionally invested...otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to put a smile om my face. Thank you. Have a blessed day.
You are doing no more than playing the Bias -accusation card. With 'I'll pray for you" insolence slapped on, with the added craftiness of making it look like it was Nice. Youy are not really doing your case any good but just putting on a rather familiar exhibition of impudent fingers -in -the -ears denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
No one is doing that. Assumptions are being made regarding motivation, but that's all they are -- assumptions. No one is telling any gay person they can't be served. This baker in question had previously catered to these particular customers. They did not discriminate against them. It's crazy that people continue to harp on this argument when it's simply not true.
Does the Muslim own the grocery store? If so, he can decide to simply not offer the product. Do you not understand that point? Otherwise, I agree with you---he/she can go work elsewhere if the job requires it.
Again....please stop assigning motive when it doesn't exist. The fact that you continue to return to this argument tells me you simply don't understand it.
Motivations are not the issue. it doesn't matter whether the refusal to put Adam and Steve on the royal icing is because of an Ick reaction to Gay sex or a cool assessment of scripture. What is done as regards providing a service to one customer and refusing that service to another, without a legally acceptable reason is what lays them open to legal action.
If the muslim owned the store, as the law stands (as It should) they can stock and sell what they like (within the law). If they refuse to handle pork goods, that is their choice. If they work in a store that does sell pork goods, legally they should have accepted that they would have to handle the stuff. As i say, reasonable concession can be made - I not long since bought some bacon and did it so the muslim lady behind the counter, (who looked at the stuff like it was a pack of dog crap) didn't have to handle it. I could have obliged her to handle it, and could have brought a court case if she refused. The gay couple could have gone somewhere else. They decided to make an issue of it. One might not approve of that, but the fact remains, they have the law on their side. You don't.
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.
Now that IS two completely different issues.
