Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'm not an expert, like Snider apparently is, on conservative Christians, but wouldn't they want to "save" people like him rather than put them in jail? Is there some widespread conservative Christian movement to put Snider in jail? And he's able to sing his bigoted stuff on FOX? I wonder if he has any concept of what really allows him to be free.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Right or wrong, any person should be entitled to discriminate as they see fit. This baker wasn't bothering anyone but the fag nazis want everyone to see things from their perspective.I am not a homophobe at all,I just can't stand that our right to opinion and individualism are being taken away. The government is forcing people to play nice and that is not necessarily in our best interest. I really don't see things Jim's way but I support his view in this case.

That, in a direct non-legalistic way, describes the fundamental transformation of our society. Those humans who wished to be free have sought through the ages for a society to exist in harmony. One of the most basic ways to do so was the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. But that was a philosophical maxim not a governing law. And it wasn't general enough to account for the personal concepts of what you wish to be done unto you. And it certainly didn't have the force of law. And laws tended to deprive individuals of personal opinion.

The Founders were very much in agreement with you that you should be able to discriminate as you wish. But they also understood that, though the individual is paramount, we must exist in society. The clash of individual wishes vs. societal cohesion needed a way to preserve one within the other. They came up with the concept of individual unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among those rights which individuals could inviolately posses and which society must protect. This social compact would protect the individual and unify the society. The individual could "discriminate" as he wishes, but must not act in ways that would negate another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So they instituted a system of government which would accommodate the sovereignty of the individual and the cohesion of society.

Apparently we individuals, over time, have been found wanting. We have been deemed by other individuals to be incapable of their version of golden rules or of forming their version of society. We must subscribe to THEIR way of acting nice, and live in THEIR version of society. "Our best interest" as an individual, because of our selfish incompetence, must conform to the best interest of the society created by this higher group of beings.

The baker may not have denied to the gays life, liberty, or PURSUIT of happiness, but he did not conform to the new ideal--the subservience of the individual to the will of the collective. Of course, neither the will of the collective, nor the ultimate motive for that will, is fully understood at this time. It is wrapped in some convenient phrases such as "fairness" or "equality" or "anti-discrimination" even though pitting one person's version of those qualities against another's denies one of them the same fairness, equality or anti-discrimination.

So the individual's desire to live freely within a society of free individuals has been, apparently, a pipe dream. We are too imperfect as individuals, so must bow to the perfection defined by the State.

[Saltheart]

If you are a baker who makes Boy/girl wedding cakes then obviously something has to be different to make it a boy/boy wedding cake. If not what would the courts be trying to make the guy bake? You don't need to get the courts involved for a boy/girl cake do you?

Now to show you what a radical you are , I was thinking it would have two men dolls on top instead of bride and groom dolls. You are talking a Phallus cake shooting frosting out the top! That's a little radical isn't it.

We should all tolerate other peoples differences. How dare someone not tolerate gays points of view. Oh I mean how dare gays not tolerate straight peoples points of view. What? They don't have to tolerate our point of view , we only have to tolerate theirs? Hmmm, somehow that hurts my feelings. Hurt feelings?? I got a court case!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

If you are a baker who makes Boy/girl wedding cakes then obviously something has to be different to make it a boy/boy wedding cake. If not what would the courts be trying to make the guy bake? You don't need to get the courts involved for a boy/girl cake do you?

Now to show you what a radical you are , I was thinking it would have two men dolls on top instead of bride and groom dolls. You are talking a Phallus cake shooting frosting out the top! That's a little radical isn't it.

We should all tolerate other peoples differences. How dare someone not tolerate gays points of view. Oh I mean how dare gays not tolerate straight peoples points of view. What? They don't have to tolerate our point of view , we only have to tolerate theirs? Hmmm, somehow that hurts my feelings. Hurt feelings?? I got a court case!!!

What gender does a wedding cake have aside from the little cheesy plastic people on top that nobody uses any more?

-spence

[Saltheart]

Originally Posted by spence

What gender does a wedding cake have aside from the little cheesy plastic people on top that nobody uses any more?

-spence

Nobody uses them little Bride/Groom dolls anymore and they make them out of cheese!!?? But they do make phallus shaped cakes that squirt whipped cream? Man , I guess I am out of touch with todays wedding cakes!

[Nebe]

Sure. You can say no.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Thanks. You're my kind of guy . . . er . . . person . . . thing . . . whatever


Oh, wait, I won't be sued for discriminating against no-good hippies, will I?

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sure. You can say no.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Nope. Just don't bogart that joint maaan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Nope. Just don't bogart that joint maaan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Faaar out maaan . . . dja ever blow some glass while you were dancin' with mary jane?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Faaar out maaan . . . dja ever blow some glass while you were dancin' with mary jane?

Not once. And that's the God's honest truth. I've had a beer or 2.. But I really need to be in my head to work with 2000 degree glass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Kinda funny that if a homosexual walks into your space of "public accommodation" and announces he's gay you gotta sell him whatever stuff you have that he wants, but if, upon finding that you don't approve of the "gay lifestyle," after taking up your space and time he can leave without buying anything and you can't get a judge to make him do it. Matter of fact, he can even picket your store and influence others not to buy your stuff. Reverse discrimination is OK.

[Nebe]

You don't have to be gay to do that. And that's why I follow the 2 commandments at my studio. 1- Be Cool. 2.- Don't be an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You don't have to be gay to do that. And that's why I follow the 2 commandments at my studio. 1- Be Cool. 2.- Don't be an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the point. Just plain regular unclassified folks can freely "discriminate" against one another in a place of public accommodation. But only "protected" class of folks, like gays, cannot be discriminated against in a place of public accommodation, even though they can (like anybody else) reverse discriminate.

[Nebe]

Not really. If a gay couple were in my studio and were being extremely rude, I'd kick them out. I can do that. Not because they are gay. Because they were being rude.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Not really. If a gay couple were in my studio and were being extremely rude, I'd kick them out. I can do that. Not because they are gay. Because they were being rude.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. You CANNOT kick them out just because they are gay. But you can "kick out" somebody that is not of a protected class even if they are not rude--just because you don't want their business for whatever reason suits you.

[Nebe]

Yep. And that is called discrimination. You don't have to be gay. You can have aids, be black, mentally disabled, a redhead, etc.....
The fact is.. If you kick anyone out because you don't like or agree with their background, you deserve what's coming to you, because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.... The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay... If he had said they were being disruptive, we would never have heard about this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Yep. And that is called discrimination. You don't have to be gay. You can have aids, be black, mentally disabled, a redhead, etc.....

You started out with a few protected classifications, but when you got to redheads . . . is that a new legally protected class?

The fact is.. If you kick anyone out because you don't like or agree with their background, you deserve what's coming to you, because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.... The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay...

Did the baker actually "kick them out" or refuse to serve them? Did he refuse to sell what he had in stock to the gays? Don't know the whole story, but doesn't sound like he would have refused their request to buy donuts or whatever else he had in stock. Story doesn't say he was rude or nasty to them. Just didn't want to bake a cake for them that would trespass his religious convictions. This was in a state which also didn't support same sex marriage. Is that just too difficult, too much of a problem for the gays to abide? What was he supposed to "have coming to him?"

If he had said they were being disruptive, we would never have heard about this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depends on whose ox is being gored. It sounds like their request was disruptive to his convictions. And maybe those convictions also included not lying about his motive. He was, as the judge phrased it in describing what should not be discriminated against, simply being who or what he is. And what is an anti-discrimination law worth if all you have to do is lie about your motive? C'mon Nebe, you know that would not have washed. As Scott said, this was more than just about a cake. If he had asked them to leave because they were being disruptive, you actually believe they would have left and let the matter be? This is just too good of an opportunity to push an agenda . . . as Rob Emanuel said . . . don't let a crisis go to waste. It has the whiff of a possible set-up. If not, it sure turned out as if it were.

[Raven]

the Baker can always get a job working for A&E

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

the Baker can always get a job working for A&E

Yeah they could ask him to do episodes of being a steward for Christian values, giving cakes to homeless folks, praying over his donuts so that they would feed the hungry and bring them to love god through the baker's charity and handiwork. Then, the final episode of a rating busting season, have him do an episode where he denies a gay couple their request for a wedding cake because it would make him an instrument in promoting that which god considered an abomination. (In the meantime having canned a full season to be aired next year.) Then make a huge stink about it, getting even more publicity which will make their next season even more of a blockbuster, and, in the meanwhile, getting rid of the bible-thumping type they normally like to discriminate against.

[Nebe]

It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There seems to be a ring of truth to what you say. At least that's, as the judge in the baker/gays case put it, at first blush. The problem with your being saddened is that it is not just SOME people who can't think for themselves, MOST can't. And, in the final analysis, NONE of us can--unless there are absolutes to guide us. In an uncertain, relative world there is nothing substantial to think about except in relation to something else. In such a world you cannot "think for yourself." You can only perceive through points of view. And those may be endless. And, in the end, they all amount to nothing more than imaginary thoughts. So, even in such a world, for our simple finite minds, we need a guidebook. The question, then, is how do we accommodate such a diversity of perceptions? Should the guidebook be dictated by a regime of thinkers we perceive to be experts on what and how we should think? Should we resolve the uncertainty by submitting to being cast into a one-size-fits-all mold? Or can we accommodate our massive spectrum of differences in such a way that we can all agree (whatever agree means in a relative world) to exist in some form of free harmony which allows our unique perspectives to flourish? Is there room in such a world for different religious perspectives, and atheistic perspectives, and agnostic perspectives, of mystical or artistic perspectives, of strictly rational scientific perspectives? Or must all but one be stamped out for the sake of creating a world which makes us secure against our ultimate ignorance?

Hey, the Founders had an idea. Just a thought. It was a friendly and imaginative guidebook.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And, in the final analysis, NONE of us can--unless there are absolutes to guide us.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How did I know you would respond to that line?
I was thinking of you when I threw in the bit about absolutes.

Actually, every rational or semi-rational, person "deals" in absolutes. Objectivist/relativist philosophers who "prove" there are no absolutes do so by definition. They define an absolute as something distinct and unaffected by anything else that exists unchanged for all time. And then they go through a catechism of questions where they make you define your terms and eventually trap you by stating nothing you answer can exist distinct and unchanged (or something like that) for eternity.

But, as Likwid might say, who gives a damn about eternity? Eternity can exist in a moment. Relatively speaking. Or otherwise. And who gives a crap about some philosopher's restrictive definition of "absolute." We have our own utilitarian definitions. Religious folks do. Scientists do. Mechanics do. Critics and rhetoricians do. Dreamers do. And Siths do. But Siths are not the only ones that do.

Absolute is a concept which provides limitations when limitations are needed or useful. Nebe absolutely cannot smoke weed when he blows glass. Absolute zero is some baseline from which to describe relative temperatures. In some instances 1 plus 1 absoslutely equals 2. We limited, imperfect beings need the guidebook which Nebe mocks. Then he prescribes a two commandment guidebook which he thinks is his own concoction. Like those "commandments" didn't exist in the realm of human thought and he just thought them up by himself without the input of all he had learned from others. Or so it seems if he is serious about the sad state of some people not being able to think for themselves.

And if we don't recognize some defined absolutes, at least for the moment, we may find it difficult, if not impossible to function in a world outside of our sleeping dreams. How would relativity be possible to describe without absolute points of view? If every point of view was relative to another point of view and that to another point of view, and that to another point of view ad infinitum it would be impossible to describe what was actually relative to what. It would all be an endless chain of indefinite possibility.

So for the necessity of the moment we deal in our trite mundane absolutes--just in order to "exist"--to get food and clothing and medical attention and money and sex and see a good movie about siths.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

God damn right it is. If you genuinely feel no one should be forced against his will to accept the beliefs of another, then how in God's name can you not be on the baker's side? Can you explain that?

Originally Posted by Nebe

It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I apologize in advance but this just struck me as amusing

maybe rephrase the question Jim

[Nebe]

As jim says.. It must be a mental illness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

As jim says.. It must be a mental illness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God damn right it is. Nebe, you claim to hate it when one person forces their beliefs onto another, and somehow, you can't see that's exactly what the liberals are doing to this baker. If you genuinely feel no one should be forced against his will to accept the beliefs of another, then how in God's name can you not be on the baker's side? Can you explain that?

I see 2 possibilities...

(1) you are in fact in favor of coercion, when you happen to agree with those trying to force their beliefs onto another

(2) you haven't thought this through

You go ahead and explain it, I'm all ears...

[Nebe]

It's simple. Be Cool. And don't be an a s s hole. How hard is it?? Baker is the later. The gays have their issues as well... But in the end... It's all about the 2 commandments.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It's simple. Be Cool. And don't be an a s s hole. How hard is it?? Baker is the later. The gays have their issues as well... But in the end... It's all about the 2 commandments.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey . . . when we make our own commandments, it ain't hard at all. Problem is making everyone else follow our commandments.

Eben for dictator!

[Nebe]

Muahahaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Scott, I am not sure I can re-phrase it with any more simplicity or clarity. Nebe says he doesn't like it when one person tries to force his beliefs onto another. That's what he said, his words, in an earlier post on this thread. Somehow, he cannot connect the dots to conclude that it's the gay rights activists who are trying to force their beliefs onto the baker. The baker isn't forcing his Christianity on anyone, he just wants to be left alone to act according to his beliefs. No one here has made a better argument for the baker's rights, than Nebe. And somehow, he thinks he's making a compelling case in opposition to the baker. He's making my argument for me, and he's not able to grasp that.

As to his comment about following an imaginary friends guide book. Assuming he is talking about the bible, that's a pretty offensive comment, and you'd think we could expect more from someone who claims to be as progressive, enlightened, and evolved as he thinks that he is.