[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
People on this board keep telling the victim in this made-up situation to just “go somewhere else”, am I the only one that sees this as an issue?
[/quote]
No, you’re not.
On the other hand, everyone needs to be able to eat, get housing, and receive medical care. Everyone doesn’t need access to wedding cakes. [/quote]
Nephorm,
You are absolutely correct, but a precedent is going to be set one way or the other, so while I wish this were something more substantial than a wedding cake…
[quote]Chushin wrote:
What amazes me is the certainty with which some people state that if you don’t follow THEIR values system you are “wrong” or bigoted.
You do realize, of course, that believing gay people should have the “right” to buy wedding cakes is nothing more than a values judgement, right? It may be the one that current society tends to ascribe to, but it is in no way some objective, provable fact or something. [/quote]
It strikes me as very odd to be arguing in favor of moral relativism to support what is ostensibly a religious injunction. Further, I don’t see anything to gain by telling people that their moral opinions are arbitrary: if morality is arbitrary, then I can arbitrarily force you to follow my morality through whatever means are at my disposal. If we’re going to get into moral debates, they can only begin by assuming that morality is objective in a way that is accessible to human reason.
You are absolutely correct, but a precedent is going to be set one way or the other, so while I wish this were something more substantial than a wedding cake…
[/quote]
That’s a cop out. Human beings (even judges) make these kinds of distinctions all the time: this is a right, that is not. Is it that difficult to say that some public accommodations are essential, others are not, and that whether they are essential is determined by factors such as availability, importance in the culture, daily burden, and so on? So that a cell phone in 1990 wasn’t very widely available, but also wasn’t very important, nor was being denied a cell phone burdensome, but in 2015 it has attained a different status (therefore, a carrier could not discriminate based on race etc)? A wedding cake is highly available from a variety of bakeries, it is important as part of a wedding ceremony, but there is no burden on the couple if they go somewhere else. I’ll leave the birth control example as an exercise for the reader.
I’m sure that sharp legal minds could come up with even better criteria. We don’t need to scream “slippery slope.” The bakery case isn’t about the couple wanting a cake and being unable to get one, it is about shaming a bakery that disagrees with gay marriage and forcing them to comply.
You are absolutely correct, but a precedent is going to be set one way or the other, so while I wish this were something more substantial than a wedding cake…
[/quote]
The bakery case isn’t about the couple wanting a cake and being unable to get one, it is about shaming a bakery that disagrees with gay marriage and forcing them to comply. [/quote]
Nephorm,
No, it is about telling businesses in Oregon that you cannot discriminate against a customer based on sexual orientation. You also can’t go online and try to trash them/stir up shit.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
No, it is about telling businesses in Oregon that you cannot discriminate against a customer based on sexual orientation.[/quote]
That would be true, again, if the couple were actually harmed in any way. It is a bit like the redefinition of racism as prejudice plus power; if everyone else is willing to sell you a cake, but you focus on the one guy who won’t, you aren’t striking a blow against discrimination. You’re just forcing them to serve you.
Since when? Did I fall asleep on an international flight? Because I thought this was America.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
No, it is about telling businesses in Oregon that you cannot discriminate against a customer based on sexual orientation.[/quote]
That would be true, again, if the couple were actually harmed in any way. It is a bit like the redefinition of racism as prejudice plus power; if everyone else is willing to sell you a cake, but you focus on the one guy who won’t, you aren’t striking a blow against discrimination. You’re just forcing them to serve you.
Since when? Did I fall asleep on an international flight? Because I thought this was America.[/quote]
Nephorm,
Feel free to read the ruling but it seems they were harmed in at least an emotional way. Additionally you seem to think that it’s not discrimination until EVERYBODY tells you they won’t make you a wedding cake, that’s not how it works.
As far as the doxing issue as near as I can tell it is not the same as just free speech, it’s publishing identifying info with a malicious intent or something along those lines.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
Feel free to read the ruling but it seems they were harmed in at least an emotional way. Additionally you seem to think that it’s not discrimination until EVERYBODY tells you they won’t make you a wedding cake, that’s not how it works.
[/quote]
I really don’t care, in any legal sense, about people being harmed in an emotional way. There are all sorts of things that make me sad, but they don’t give me a cause of action.
My point isn’t that everybody tells you they won’t make you a wedding cake. My point is that if 100 bakeries will make you a cake, but you just can’t stand the fact that the 101st will not, that is not a case of discrimination in any real sense. It is a case of you wanting to have your way at all times. Just as if there are 10 CVSs within a mile of you, but the Christian-owned pharmacy won’t sell you BC, bitching about it or suing over it isn’t about access to birth control or the right to control your body.
[quote]
As far as the doxing issue as near as I can tell it is not the same as just free speech, it’s publishing identifying info with a malicious intent or something along those lines.[/quote]
So a bit more than “stir[ring] shit up” online. OK.
Feel free to read the ruling but it seems they were harmed in at least an emotional way. Additionally you seem to think that it’s not discrimination until EVERYBODY tells you they won’t make you a wedding cake, that’s not how it works.
As far as the doxing issue as near as I can tell it is not the same as just free speech, it’s publishing identifying info with a malicious intent or something along those lines.[/quote]
If you reference pages 40-41, it summarizes what was noted earlier in the ruling, namely that one of the Complaintants had exaggerated during her testimony, and that it was difficult to prove how much emotional harm stemmed from social media/harassment exposure versus just being denied the cake. It was noted that one of the Respondents, the husband of the bakery owner, merely posted a copy of the complaint filed by the lesbian couple on Facebook. While that was at that time a matter of public record, it resulted in a lot of harassment for the lesbian couple, although there was no evidence that the bakery owners themselves aided or abetted in encouraging said harassment once the story went viral on far right-wing websites, etc.
The actual order is on pp. 41-43. The BOLI stated that the monetary awards were for “the emotional suffering they experienced from Respondent’ denial of service.” So they were in fact sued for denying service and causing emotional distress because of that denial of service, but contrary to some left-leaning media sites, there was no specific monetary award given for doxing their personal information online. I suspect that is because the original complaint was a matter of public record when posted to FB by the bakery owner’s husband, and nothing proved the bakery owners encouraged harassment, even though some private parties took it upon themselves to do so, including death threats made to the lesbian couple.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
No, it is about telling businesses in Oregon that you cannot discriminate against a customer based on sexual orientation.[/quote]
That would be true, again, if the couple were actually harmed in any way. It is a bit like the redefinition of racism as prejudice plus power; if everyone else is willing to sell you a cake, but you focus on the one guy who won’t, you aren’t striking a blow against discrimination. You’re just forcing them to serve you.
Since when? Did I fall asleep on an international flight? Because I thought this was America.[/quote]
Nephorm,
Feel free to read the ruling but it seems they were harmed in at least an emotional way. Additionally you seem to think that it’s not discrimination until EVERYBODY tells you they won’t make you a wedding cake, that’s not how it works.
As far as the doxing issue as near as I can tell it is not the same as just free speech, it’s publishing identifying info with a malicious intent or something along those lines.[/quote]
And if a child’s environment isn’t optimal, what would you do?
[/quote]
Non-optimal can mean everything from extreme poverty and starvation to emotional abuse. Can you elaborate? [/quote]
Being born into the human condition is not optimal.
killerDIRK: just an observation. Because I could really give a rats red ass less about what people think.
I have a hard time believing that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Oh, and Push:
Since I have the “balls” to come out here in what could be considered “hostile” territory because I am Queer…
[/quote]
“Hostile territory?” T-Nation’s Chief Content Officer done gone and unleashed a devastating fusillade that has claimed that territory for ya. Whatcha worried about?
[/quote]
I would say it is probably more of a hostile environment for a Christian to come on here and express his/her beliefs. I could be wrong, but if I were to say that I believe the souls of drunkards, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, and swindlers will spend eternity in a place called hell, unless they confess the lordship of Jesus in their lives, I might catch some flack.
Debating and arguing opinion is fun and all, but why not fuel all that emotion into another set of deadlifts.
imo a lot of gay men become gay because they are pushed to become gay at young age through social factors…but, it could be based on genetic phenotype magnifying the effect…feminine traits…
Lesbians as well…pretty easy to see that many lesbians have a masculine phenotype…or they become lesbians because certain social factors push them away from men in general(hostile male relationships)…becomes a status quo in their life…
idk why does kim kardashian only fuck w black dudes mainly…black dudes where the main guys who were sexually available to her…
[quote]orion wrote:
Bodybuilding is not the gayest sport on earth, there is always male synchronized swimming.[/quote]
Sure.
Just go right to the deep end of the pool…[/quote]
You dont understand, if I tried to be the gayest, not even the most flaming figure skater would stand a chance…
Well, they would, but I would challenge their supremacy!
BB does not try to be the gayest or we would be.
We just happen to be the second or third gayest, but that is just a coincidence.
In totally unrelated news I am very excited about my new Samsung washing machine I paid an unreasonable amount of money for but it can wash more than 8 kgs and has more than 15 programs and an app!!![/quote]
HSF, how come this site has yet to install a like widget on this site?