Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 3:11 PM:
If it is for a Man/Boy Love Association Party?
Replies (291)
If it's a private business, absolutely!!
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 3:58 PM
Religion was formed when the first con man met the first fool. Said by a famous American.
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 4:25 PM
Religion was formed when the first con man met the first fool. -- Posted by left turn on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 4:25 PM
Deflection was formed to change the subject from the question at hand. Said by a famous marxist American and personal friend/mentor of Hillary Clinton - Saul Alinsky.
Example: no one said anything about religion, so use that because you can't answer the question.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 4:29 PM
So Nil, you would be happy to know you made the cake for their event? Even though they want pedophilia to be legal.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 5:44 PM
Sharia law prohibits bakers from making cakes for same sex couples.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 7:19 PM
If I owned a bakery and did not use any federal funds to open or run it then I am free to make any cakes to who ever I please. If forced to make a cake to someone/s that I did not want to; then that party had better stock up on toilet paper.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 7:38 PM
Should a sign painter be required to paint letters making up a statement he considers blasphemy?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 7:43 PM
Common, What relevant point are you trying to make?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 7:48 PM
Common, What relevant point are you trying to make?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 7:48 PM
We are, or, are going to be under sharia law, maybe???
Maybe Common has advance notice of Obama's next Executive Action.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 8:09 PM
Wheels: It's part of the Iran Nuclear deal that the JV USA team has negotiated....we will be forced to follow the sharia law. Well at least we won't have to sell cakes to those that we don't want to. ☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 8:12 PM
Regret, Is this is about the Indiana law that Sharpton will surely try to turn into a race thing?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 8:22 PM
Wheels, Be nice to common lest he back out on our land deal. We need him to get around the capitol gains taxes.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 8:25 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 8:25 PM
Yes and we had better keep this on the QT or we might start a land rush.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 8:45 PM
Nil, In my example of a sign painter, I would think most all his work was of custom nature. How do you separate discrimination in his case when he is asked to make a sign that says something contrary to his opinion from what is the customers right of free speech being suppressed?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 8:54 PM
OJ - good examples...
Should a Jewish sign painter be required to paint a sign that says "Jews Suck"?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 8:55 PM
quit judging. -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 9:27 PM
What does that mean? Is a Jewish sign painter judging if he refuses to paint a sign that says "Jews Suck"? Better yet, is he reasonable and within his right to refuse to do so?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 9:36 PM
Actually, if you want to make a living selling cakes...then sell cakes and quit judging. If you don't want to sell cakes to pink people, then don't...but I will not buy from you either :)
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 9:27 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with gays. But what if the KKK needed one for a rally and told me what It was for. Should they be able to sue me?
Now the answer "That's different" doesn't cut it.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:03 PM
Sorry I left this off. If you knew I sold cakes to the KKK you would probably not buy from me either. It's a double edge sword.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:05 PM
Theorist,
What are you trying to say.... all the queers want is for us to bake them a cake and they will forget all about the marriage business and silly stuff like painting signs:
If that is the case, then I say give them their cake and let them eat it too.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:05 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 9:55 PM
The people are protesting against the law for any business.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:07 PM
Therorist, Are you a pink people? :)
You are right in what you elude to. If all the rage is mini skirts and as a dressmaker I refuse to make mini skirts, some other dressmaker will make them and profit. That's the way it works and should be the end of it. What we are hearing is defense of that idea in that laws cannot force me to make and sell mini skirts.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:09 PM
Who is talking about Jewish sign painters?? The thread is about baking cakes...that's the title... -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 9:55 PM
It's not about baking cakes. It's about refusing service. Nice try at deflection. Now deflect this:
If a Jewish Cake baker was asked to decorate a cake that says "Kill Jews" should he comply? Is he judgmental for refusing to do this?
Come on Theo - get in or get out. The wasted deflection speaks volumes.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:10 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:19 PM
Regret, Thanks for reminding me of why I don't watch MSNBC.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:30 PM
When I saw CBS say big stars like Miley Cyrus was against it I had to laugh.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:33 PM
I haven't followed this closely but did hear that Bill Clinton signed it into law and all the libs were for it back then. Seems liberals always want to pick and choose what constitutes a minority. And we all know minorities deserve special privilege whether thy be queer, non white or women that make up more than half the population.
Gee, that women demographic makes me wonder why the Spaniard is always so grumpy. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:50 PM
Buy One Get One Free Offer: Purchase our specially made tofu with our famous in house seasoning and get a half pound of our deliciously smoked pork jowl free. A $3.00 value!
Ut-oh, Without the Indiana law just passed, the vegetarians, the vegans, the Jews and the Muslims and who knows else are able to sue for remedy. A class action suit begins and Uncle Joe's corner grocery is no more.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 11:10 PM
Another wedge issue,,,,this country is in a mess.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 6:32 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 5:28 AM
A 3rd deflection. I know, the tough questions are not your cup of tea.
Just trying to have a conversation and understand the liberal mind set on controlling others lives. Clearly you have beliefs that you don't want to be known.
It is, after all, an anonymous forum. Can you not support your beliefs? If so, maybe you should open your mind.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 7:01 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 7:01 AM
Dug, Theorist doesn't have a "liberal" mind set. Don't you remember? She told us she was an "Independent"...😊
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 7:14 AM
Another wedge issue,,,,this country is in a mess.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 6:32 AM
Dexter,
Have you ever asked yourself why?
If so you might not be so devoted to the wacky leftists.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:07 AM
"What relevant point...."
It would seem to be abundantly clear that Governor Pence's law is as silly as Sharia law. Maybe that's what happens when your Governor is a former "talk show host" in Rushville, Indiana (you can't make this stuff up.)
In any case he's already backed off and admitted that his "non-discrimination" law won't "discriminate."
The point is that if you're in the business of making wedding cakes, you sell to whomever wants to buy one. How is that different from the same gay couple walking into a Hobby Lobby and wanting to buy artificial flowers to decorate their ceremony?
As for the "kill Jews" cakes and the "KKK" cakes, and the "red herring" cakes, those "examples" are irrelevant and meaningless because none of the bakers that I am aware of are in the business of producing "kill Jews" or "KKK" cakes every day and have already made hundreds.
Bakery owners that make wedding cakes everyday should offer any couple cakes that are on the shelf or in their catalog, without concerning themselves as to the religious or societal leanings of their customer. It would seem the simplest solution for the baker to offer a selection of cakes that they make, and if the couple wants something different, they can go somewhere else.
It would seem that the Governor of Indiana should have more to do than deciding who can buy or sell cakes.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:09 AM
Are you answering for We regret or are you one and the same....da,da,da....
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 5:28 AM
You know better Ther. You can't pick and choose on the is law. Does the law need an exclusion added for gays?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:18 AM
"It should be up to the owner to decide how they choose to do business regarding their customers .
Why would anybody turn down the profit ? On the other hand , it's a matter of personal principle."
Rick,
Pretty much the way I look at it. When I first started my business more than 50 years ago I had 2 for sure and possibly 3 customers that were queer. Never bothered me, they left me alone and I left them alone. It was a business deal and they got the same service anyone else did. There was one positive that they must exhibit before I did business with them.... and that was that their money was green like everybody else.
Someone might want to know how I knew what they were.... well I worked in their homes, and there was no question about it.
We had few problems at that time. And we would have much less of a problem in this country right now if the leftist minority of the country would quit hammering at others and quit trying to tell them how they must live. They constantly pick out a "cause" and then demonstrate to the rest of the world by their actions how totally "intolerant" they themselves are.
And that in particular is what sets the stage for how some of us on here get along with the few intolerant leftists. It did not take long after I started posting on here for one of them to tell me what was wrong with me.... in THEIR opinion.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:29 AM
What is the difference between a queer cake and a straight cake anyway. If a person comes in and orders a cake and doesn't shove their sexual preference in your face then the baker has no clue and will honor the order; however if the opposite happens the baker has the right to refuse service to anyone. The same would be the point if a KKK member, anti-Jew, or anti-Christian person would come in and order a cake professing their feelings to the baker.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:48 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:09 AM
Common, what about the owner of the pizza parlor in Arkansas that was getting sued by the atheist couple. They claimed discrimination because the owner was offering a Sunday discount for anyone who brought in a church bulletin....Your right, you can't make this stuff up.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:53 AM
It would seem the simplest solution for the baker to offer a selection of cakes that they make, and if the couple wants something different, they can go somewhere else.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:09 AM
Wow - looks like you agree with the Governor of Indiana... if a gay couple wants a cake that has two men on it or two women (something different) they can go somewhere else.
Sometimes you confuse yourself.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:01 AM
"Even though they want pedophilia to be legal."
In America, you have the right to lobby to make anything that is legal illegal or to make anything that is illegal legal. That is as it ought to be. If they are not engaging in the illegal activity, I don't see the point.
As Nil notes, if you bake cakes and set them out for sale, it really ought to be of no concern to you the purpose of the event for which they a want they want to set it on the table.
If they ask you to letter it with offensive slogans, you ought to be able to refuse to do so. No one should be able to make you write what you do not want to write, they have no right to do so. They are free to write whatever they want written upon it, but they do not have the right to demand it of you.
If the cake is to be a custom cake, then the baker ought to have the freedom to refuse to bake it. "Artistic freedom" and all that, you know. Nor do you have to be an 'artist' in order to enjoy "artistic freedom".
Consider this, if you are a printer and someone wants to hire you to print flyers demanding that your business be prohibited, ought they be able to require you to do so? Does the fact that you have gone into business mean you have to sell to those with whom doing business might be damaging to your business, even if they damage is only perceived and not factual?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:07 AM
The law is based on the 1993 Religious Freedom Act from Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy, signed by Clinton that was ruled unconstitutional when applied to the states. Since, some states have passed their own versions driven by liberal input. Now the left sees it as a way to cry foul because Indiana does not specifically designate queers as a minority or a religious group.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:08 AM
"It would seem that the Governor of Indiana should have more to do than deciding who can buy or sell cakes."
I agree, and I suspect he does, too. The legislation (which he didn't write) does not do that. It says the baker can decide to whom he wants to sell cakes. That is as it ought to be.
I rather doubt that any baker will be requiring a signed statement of heterosexuality by their customers. It is only when they specifically request a custom order that the baker is likely to know or care for what the cake is used.
If I walk into the local confectioner and buy a birthday cake, they probably don't know or care whether I am actually using it to celebrate a birthday. If I impose upon them to decorate it with a slogan, however, the possibility that I might offend them exists, and they ought to have the right to tell me "no".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:13 AM
"The point is that if you're in the business of making wedding cakes, you sell to whomever wants to buy one. How is that different from the same gay couple walking into a Hobby Lobby and wanting to buy artificial flowers to decorate their ceremony?"
Because the flowers are ready-made and one simply buys them "off the shelf", requiring no special action or artistic duties on behalf of Hobby Lobby to create them. I rather doubt the Chinese slave-labourers who made the flowers know or care whether the recipient is gay or straight, American or African, religious or atheistic, etc.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:16 AM
Aren't the boycotters discriminating by picking on certain groups with whom they refuse to do business?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:19 AM
"Life is complicated enough in the year 2015 without more rules , rules , rules..."
But this law, in general, doesn't impose more rules. It does not require anybody to do anything, it merely allows people to do or not to do as their conscience dictates. The anti-discrimination laws impose rules, this relaxes them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:45 AM
Flowers? Signs? Rules? Discrimination? Come on guys, the self-appointed moderator Theorist says you must post about "cakes" since it's in the title.
The queen of deflection has spoken!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:06 AM
She sure does. Who said she doesn't?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:20 AM
If I want a cake baked in the shape of a naked pole dancer, showing full frontal nudity, which says "Congratulations on the new job!", can I force a baker to bake it? Pole dancing is legal and full frontal nudity is legal in my state, so is it discrimination to refuse my request?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:22 AM
"....shape of a naked pole dancer,..."
That is no different than the "kill Jews" or "KKK" or "red herring" cakes. If the bakery makes naked lady cakes for a business, then they will do so. If they don't have them on their self or in their catalog, then there's no reason they should have to make a single, one-time "naked lady cake" for anyone.
The wedding cake baker does make wedding cakes as a business, he could easily point out that he does not carry little figures of two men or two women together, and if that's what the couple wants, they should go elsewhere. If the couple just wants an ordinary wedding cake, the baker should sell one to them, in spite of Governor Pence and Dug saying he shouldn't.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 11:08 AM
"in spite of Governor Pence and Dug saying he shouldn't." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 11:08 AM
Please provide evidence that Pence or Dug said that. I'll await your response.
Be careful, I was banned by one of your liberal friends for making up stuff when, in fact, I didn't make it up and was reinstated.
If you're making up stuff, common, one of your liberal friends will have you banned. Assuming, of course, that they are neutral , unbiased and fair - LOL!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 11:24 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 11:08 AM
I don't believe the governor or Dug said any such thing...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 11:25 AM
"... in spite of Governor Pence..."
Nothing in what is happening in Indiana involves Governor Pence saying they shouldn't. That is your "red herring". He says they may say they won't. That is entirely different.
"What this law basically says is that the Government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work."
- Bill Clinton, November 1993 -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 11:29 AM
A dozen years ago, this would have been a non-starter. Of course, we knew back then, no one can be required to bake a cake for someone for whom they do not want to bake a cake. Nor would anyone want to eat a cake that was baked by someone who was forced to bake it.
But then the lawsuit happened. And then the court ruled in favour of the couple who wanted someone forced to bake a cake. And so we find ourselves now at this point, and this law was created, as it has been in other states, to protect the right of bakers not to bake cakes they don't want to bake. And, yet, there are those who oppose it.
Contrary to what Commonsensematters claims, this is not about being able to walk in and buy a cake off the shelf and putting a groom and a groom on top instead of a bride and a groom on top. It is about being able to legally obligate someone to use their creative talents in a manner that is morally offensive to them, to be forced to create a work of art they do not want to create.
Would one go to an Islamic artist to have the ceiling of one's Cathedral painted with images of Christian Faith? I rather doubt it. Would one want their Cathedral ceiling painted by an Islamic painter forced by law to paint it? I doubt it even more.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 11:54 AM
"He says they may say they won't. That is entirely different."
So is he saying that may discriminate against someone, by denying a service that is available to anyone else? Did the Governor not mean that the baker shouldn't have to sell a wedding to a customer if the baker doesn't like them?
The Governor seems to be backtracking by claiming that they will now "fix" the law which clearly implies that it was broken to begin with.
I don't agree with him now, but would if he throws in the towel and declares this whole issue has been silly to begin with.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 11:59 AM
"So is he saying that may discriminate against someone, by denying a service that is available to anyone else?"
what do you mean by saying it is available to "everyone else"? Do you know for whom the baker bakes and for whom he does not? But, yes, if he sells his artistic talents then he may refuse to serve those whose demands my violate his beliefs. The Constitution guarantees it, as it should.
"Did the Governor not mean that the baker shouldn't have to sell a wedding to a customer if the baker doesn't like them?"
I have no idea what the Governor "meant", and you don't either.
Can a preacher refuse to marry a gay couple? That ought to be a non-starter, also, but there are those who would say he can be demanded to make his services and his facilities available to anyone who wants to employ them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:15 PM
"I don't agree with him now, but would if he throws in the towel and declares this whole issue has been silly to begin with."
It wasn't silly in 1993, when Bill Clinton signed the Federal version of the legislation, and it isn't silly now. As I said, it would be, had the lawsuit not been brought against the baker, or had the courts not sided with the couple. But the lawsuit happened and the courts ruled, and so this matter is not silly.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:16 PM
"No...BUT...if the baker baked it for someone else, and now refuses to bake it for you, because he doesn't like your looks...it is discrimination."
Lots of things are discrimination. The question is: is it illegal discrimination? Should it be?
People discriminate routinely. If I have a painter give me a quote on painting my house, which is the same size as my neighbor's house, he may quote me a higher price because he doesn't like my looks, or because I angered him in some way of which I am not aware, or because he talked to my neighbor's pretty wife, and he's a soft touch for a charming smile. Is that wrong? Perhaps, but if he doesn't tell me why he bid a higher price, I can only speculate. Ought it to be illegal? NO. He ought to be able to set his price as he sees fit, and I ought to be able to negotiate for a lower price, or to reject his bid outright, as I see fit. He ought even to be able to refuse to bid my project altogether, if he so desires. What authority ought I have to force him to paint my house if he doesn't want to do so. This is true even if he's quoted every other house in the county.
I am asking for his time and talents, and I have no claim upon them if he does not wish to grant them willingly.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:31 PM
"And if the bus driver wants the black people to sit on the back of his bus?"
The bus in question is a public accommodation, funded with tax dollars. Different animal altogether.
"... or the sit at the end of the bar of a restaurant owners bar?" We do that with smokers today. But, again, the location at which a person sits at the bar is not an imposition upon the time and talents of the bartender. If he has closed off the east end of the bar because he has waxed the floor, then he ought to be able to tell me to sit at the west end, no?
"Insert foot and take a giant hop backwards!"
Methinks you should do the same, if you cannot see the distinction between the two.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:34 PM
"Insert foot and take a giant hop backwards!"
Surely, even you can see the difference between demanding that a bookseller sell book to me and demanding that an author write one for me.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:39 PM
"The baker already bakes cakes :) He didn't have to learn a new skill (write a book), he was asked to do what he had done before. (sell)"
The author writes. It's what he does. He doesn't have to learn a new skill.
There is a difference between baking and selling cakes. The baker bakes the cakes: it is an art form (like writing books). Selling cakes implies merely the retail trade in finished goods (pre-baked cakes).
Generally, when buying a wedding cake, one does not go to a retailer and pick a cake off the shelf, one goes to a baker and has them design a specific cake for the occasion. The baker creates an artwork designed as much for its visual appeal as for its flavor.
It is, after all, not unlike writing a book.
"We do put smokers in another part of the restaurant...for safety and the health of everyone else. Surely you can see the difference there!"
But it still discriminates, based on behavior.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM
"He didn't have to learn a new skill (write a book)"
If he is an author, then he already has the skill. That is why I would make my demand upon an author, not a bookseller. That is also why one has one's cake baked by a baker, not a cakeseller.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:08 PM
He didn't have to learn a new skill (write a book) -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:44 PM
The thread is about baking cakes...that's the title...-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 9:55 PM
Who is talking about writing a book? The thread is about baking cakes... that's the title.
And you're groping for straws and spinning. You keep changing the subject.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:10 PM
For once, you're almost right. If the designs in the book are not satisfactory, the customer should go somewhere else.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:31 PM
"Your analogy falls flat...for the baker already knows how to bake, has the equipment and skills etc."
No. It does not. The author also has the skills, etc., which is why I would go to him. But, they are his skills, to deploy or not to deploy as he sees fit. The bottom line, the baker and the author use their own talents and skills to create a specific product for the occasion. They ought to have control over the employment of those talents.
This is the point to which we have sunk: the idea of the "individual mandate", so to speak. We can now force anyone into a contract to which they do not wish to enter - whether with a baker's client or an insurance company's financial offerings. It is sad to me that no one can see how wrong this is.
In the case, someone's sensibilities will be hurt, be it the religious baker or the gay couple. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression, it does not guarantee the freedom of sexual expression. Ergo, the law ought to fall on the side of the religious baker, whose sensibilities are supposed to be constitutionally protected. But we don't care much about the Constitution anymore, nor about protecting religion anymore. We have lost our way as a nation and as a people.
And yet some still labour under the misperception that they are free.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:35 PM
For once, you're almost right-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:31 PM
Wow! Common goes "conservative" - agrees with the governor, Dug and RELee in one day! Welcome to the good side.
====
Fasten your seat belt with Theo spin. It's gonna get big as usual when trying to always be "right". Like the time she supporting banning one person based on the actions of another. That was legendary!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:35 PM
"It's been a while since you bought a cake, no? The bakery shows you a book of their designs, and pictures of what they can do...you then decide what you want yours to look like...you are also invited to taste a variety of flavors if you wish..."
They do that at Wal-Mart. That's all well and good if you want a wedding cake with four-wheel-drive trucks on it or if you are having a Ninja Turtles' theme at your wedding. A proper wedding cake designer is bit more original.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:46 PM
"I would not do business with this bakery, and I probably would tell them why..."
And that is all the law is saying. The argument to the contrary is that the bakery should be forced into agreement with the potential customer - and supply them with what they want with no regard to their moral objections.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 1:49 PM
"What happens if straight people refuse to buy a cake from a gay bakery ?
"Would they not be accused of discrimination ?"
I suspect the gay baker wouldn't know about it unless they made a public demonstration of their refusal.
Most "straight" people I know don't define themselves by their sexuality, and don't usually give a rat's rear end what anyone else's is, unless they make it an issue. In fact, I only assume they are "straight" because of the outward signs of "straightness", I really don't know how they behave behind closed doors, unless they have told me.
I have no idea what the sexual preference of my butcher, my baker, nor my candle-stick maker may be, nor do I care. If, however, they start making an issue of it, I might choose not to trade with them, depending on how they made it known and why.
There are lots of businesses I don't do business with. Few of them have ever bothered to ask me why I don't, assuming they've even noticed my absence from their foyer.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 3:14 PM
Discriminating against queers is not religious discrimination. That discrimination is addressed with other federal laws.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 3:15 PM
"Actually, Shapley...I was talking about a wedding cake designer and their portfolio. Does Walmart make wedding cakes?"
Wal-Mart makes all sorts of cakes. It's been a while since I purchased a wedding cake, but when I did, I did not choose from a portfolio of designs. I was shown a sample of what had been done, but I was not expected to choose one just like something in the past. Each patron defines what they want and the baker creates a new one based on their description.
I don't remember ever seeing a "gay" wedding cakes in any portfolio I've ever seen. I suppose no baker would have them in their portfolio until they made the first one, since the portfolio I saw was a collection of completed projects. Are they all discriminatory, then?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 3:18 PM
"At Celebrating Life, we love to design creative, whimsical, artistic cakes to make our customer's special occasions unforgettable.
"We always use the freshest ingredients and make our cakes, fillings, and icings from scratch. After all, the best part of any cake is how it tastes!
"We can create your unique cake, from sculpted groom's cakes to multi-layered graduation or sparkling anniversary cakes. Let our artist design your fabulous one-of-a-kind birthday cake, or the elegant wedding cake of your dreams."
Note the important words there: "unique", "artist", "design", "one-of-a-kind", etc.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 3:24 PM
"This is all no different then a person walking into a bakery , sticking a gun to the owners head , and telling them they will make them a cake ."
That is what I've said all along: all laws come down to the point of a gun.
"I have a pistol and I'm not afraid to use it!" and "I have a government and I'm not afraid to use it!" really have the same meaning, ultimately.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 3:32 PM
Apparently, the liberty-loving-Left loves telling people what they have to do and for whom they have to do it.
They also like to interpret your morality for you, and are quick to tell you that your interpretation of a faith to which they do not adhere is incorrect.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 5:28 PM
The religious right wing nuts take pleasure in discriminating against anybody not of their kind. But, if someone says something about them they cry "persecution." By the way, you folks got way too much time on your hands.
-- Posted by left turn on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 5:50 PM
"By the way, you folks got way too much time on your hands."
The Left also obsesses over how we spend that which is ours to spend, be it our money or our time.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 6:36 PM
"The religious right wing nuts take pleasure in discriminating against anybody not of their kind."
The Left also feels compelled to call people names.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 6:37 PM
-- Posted by left turn on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 5:50 PM
Left Wing Nut: "The religious right wing nuts" - glad I'm one of them, I'll say a prayer that they find a cure for your mental illness.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:13 PM
Is pizza a big thing at queer ceremonies called weddings that have no distinction between bride and groom?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 8:34 PM
"Note the important words there: "unique", "artist", "design", "one-of-a-kind", etc."
Think maybe that's what is called advertising, and nothing more.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:14 PM
And all it's for is a cake, or if you wish for a pizza, and having nothing to do with encroaching on religous "freedom."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:31 PM
Apparently, the liberty-loving-Left loves telling people what they have to do and for whom they have to do it.
They also like to interpret your morality for you, and are quick to tell you that your interpretation of a faith to which they do not adhere is incorrect.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 5:28 PM
Maybe not as well said as the above, but essentially that is what I recently posted.
A Leftist Minority, trying to run everyone else's life for them.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:33 PM
common, I still think this is about a democrat law that was found unconstitutional because the federal government had no authority to enforce it onto the state level. Some states wrote their own version and congress rewrote and passed a compliant federal law. It has to do with the extent that governments, city, county can get involved in forcing business and people in general to give up their religious freedoms.
The left is now opposing as if being queer qualifies as religious freedom which should be recognized. I don't think so.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:37 PM
Wheels, Glad to assume I-55 is now safe to drive.
This has been a convoluted thread from the beginning. Title is about cakes but I think it is about a new Indiana law that nobody seems to understand. The Shapley-Theorist report gave little insight and I have trouble understanding the legal aspects of it. We seem to all be focused on queers and I think that is what the left wants, recognition of a group as a religious minority. I ain't buying it.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:50 PM
Been driving and unpacking today, so have not read all of the above, nor had the time to respond to what I did read. One thing I thought kind of silly....
""but if he doesn't tell me why he bid a higher price, I can only speculate. " This is correct...but if he tells you outright that he dislikes your looks, and that is why he is bumping your estimate, it should be illegal."
It is now, or should be, illegal to tell somebody I am going to charge you more because I do not like your looks?
Really? First, I can not feature somebody doing so and even if they did... it should be illegal?
There are many reasons for charging one party more than another for the same job, be it cake baking or changing a transmission on a car.
Perhaps the mechanic knows the customer who he is changing the transmission for from previous work and he knows as soon as the transmission job is bid, the customer, after the job is completed and paid for is going to want the burned out tail light replaced and is going to want it comped.
I had a customer like that who was a satisfied customer for years. He was bid accordingly. He got everything he paid for and thought he was ahead. Siblings are not all alike, nor are customers.
And then there is the customer who receives a lower bid because of the volume of work he might give a contractor, say 25 or 30 rental houses he owns.
Why should a baker or a home repair contractor have to explain how he arrives at his price to a consumer who may go elsewhere if he does not think the price is fair? It is reasonable to expect that he/she would explain what it is they would do for the price. Profit motivated businesses treat their customers equitably if they expect to stay in business. If a job turns out to be unprofitable because the contractor missed something should he be able to go back and ask for more money?
The only thing you can make book on if the government gets involved, before long the cost of regulation and paperwork is going to raise everyones price.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:24 PM
"And all it's for is a cake, or if you wish for a pizza, and having nothing to do with encroaching on religous "freedom."
But some people interpret their religion to require them to shun unrepentent sinners. In that case, it is about religious freedom. Who are you, ot I, or the courts to tell them they must associate with them in order to satisfy some perceived goal of inclusion?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:30 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 9:50 PM
Old John,
I-55 is now been declared safe.
Reckon it's nothing short of a miracle but I managed to make my near 800 mile drive without running over any construction workers, stray dogs and cats, or other motorists.
And that qualifies for miraclehood, as I have not been tested for my driving ability for some 61 years now.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:31 PM
I shall check in on all this tomorrow.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:37 PM
...I would not do business with this bakery, and I probably would tell them why...for Rick says I have free speech!
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:41 PM
In other words you would discriminate against the baker because he offends you by not selling to gays, just as the baker discriminated against the gays because their lifestyle offends him.
Hypocrite.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:42 PM
FFF
I think you figured it out. Would this all day argument qualify for what some refer to as circular logic.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:48 PM
No no! That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work! If you don't like the baker, don't use him. Let the baker refuse to bake a cake for whoever, and those who are offended can stay away. Those who aren't can get their cake!
-- Posted by ssnkemp on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 5:40 AM
"...their religion to require them to shun unrepentent sinners."
Maybe they should go back and re-read Matthew 7:1.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 7:47 AM
Hypocrite. -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:42 PM
BINGO! Kinda sums up what I've been saying about the whole thing and the incessant spin. Some of the best points:
1-Bill Clinton and democrats completely agree with this when the federal law was passed
2-The constitution clearly protects freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion
3-liberals are against this now only because it's the new "group think" of the left. They continually push the division of the country and benefit from their campaign of victim mentality.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:15 AM
"...their religion to require them to shun unrepentent sinners."
Maybe they should go back and re-read Matthew 7:1.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 7:47 AM
Common, why do you insist on paraphrasing everyone's posts?...It doesn't look very good on your part, IMO.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:31 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:31 PM
Wheels: Welcome back from your long road trip, any problems going thru St. Louis?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:14 AM
Looks like the gays have won again, the Indiana law has been changed so all the gays can buy all the cakes they want from any bait shop that bakes cakes.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:15 AM
"Maybe they should go back and re-read Matthew 7:1."
Maybe you should refrain from telling other people how to live their religion. Isn't that what the law is supposed to be about?
"The Left" claims to fear being dictated to by "right-wing extremists" imposing Bible-based laws. And, yet, they lives are made no worse by the refusal of some baker in Indiana to serve a wedding cake to a potentially gay client. Yet, they have no qualms about telling those on "the Right" how they ought to be reading their Bible and how they ought to interpreting them.
I find that more troubling than a baker's refusal to bake a cake.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:26 AM
"Why not just bake their own cake and forget about it ?"
Now, there you go causing trouble again.
Can't you see this about people who are reading their Bibles wrong, and the need to avoid passing legislation that might allow them to hold to views which are based on those interpretations?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:36 AM
"If they have no bread, then let them eat cake!"
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:38 AM
"...can buy all the cakes they want from any bait shop that bakes cakes."
"Buying Cakes at a bait shop is a good way to get worms" - Confuse Us -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:40 AM
"...what the heck will they do for their wedding reception ?"
From what I can gather, they order pizza from the only pizza parlor in Indiana, and then demand it be shut down if they won't cater the wedding.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:56 AM
I think Common used the wrong quote earlier. He should have used this one:
"Let them eat cake..." - Marie Antoinette (beheaded not long after).
:-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:57 AM
Maybe they should go back and re-read Matthew 7:1.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 7:47 AM
Common
Since you are an atheist and said the bible is a fairy tale why would you say t read it?
-- Posted by ssnkemp on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 5:40 AM
Probably the best answer of all. If they won't do it then they will go out of biz. Right?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM
I was not aware that Commonsensematters had ever proclaimed himself an Atheist.
"Let them eat cake..." Marie Antoinette
There's no evidence Marie Antoinette said that. Rousseau, in his "Confessions", attributed it to "the Great Princess" when Marie Antoinette was still a child.
It's one of those "facts" we've all grown up with which, it turns out, probably aren't factual.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 10:28 AM
"If I patronize a business with which I disagree with their principles, I would be a hypocrite."
So, you support the right of businesses not to engage in practices, such as catering gay weddings, if the business owners disagree with those principles? I thought you were arguing the opposite.
If I disagree with concept of gay marriage, I would be a hypocrite to provide goods or services to a gay marriage ceremony, no?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:29 AM
"Memories Pizza in Indiana refused to cater a gay wedding."
No, they didn't. They were never asked to cater a gay wedding. They were asked about the law and they said they would not cater one, if asked. The hatred spewed from the "tolerant" left was telling.
Prior to the interview, I suspect the vast majority of America never heard of Memories Pizza, yet somehow, after the interview, America could no longer survive if they remained in business.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:32 AM
I do not see how anyone's life is made better by the closing of Memories Pizza.
But, it is reported that the closing is only temporary, until the threatening emails and website attacks close. The intolerance of the "tolerant" left will likely be short-lived, as they will find another target of their hatred at some point.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:35 AM
I have never patronized Memories Pizza, and probably never will. Not because I have any disagreement with them, but because I will likely never find myself in Walkerton, Indiana and, even if I do, will probably not be in the mood for pizza when I am there.
My life is not affected in the least by the existence or non-existence of Memories Pizza, nor by their choice of customer base. If they cater or do not cater a gay wedding, should there be one held in Walkerton, Indiana, it will be of no consequence to me. Nor will it likely be of consequence to the vast majority of America.
Yet, somehow, you feel free to judge them unsuitable based on erroneous news reporting regarding their position. Erroneous, in that they did not refuse to cater such a wedding, they merely said they would if asked, contrary to the reports.
I, myself, feel no moral superiority regarding my position (or non-position) regarding Memories Pizza. They exist, and that is enough. You, however, seem to feel some sort of moral victory over their temporary closing, and have seen fit to judge them hypocritical without ever having met anyone there nor set foot in the establishment. Considering that this topic seems to be about judging others, methinks that may qualify as being a case of hypocrisy.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM
"Do you understand discrimination, Shapley?"
If you refuse to patronize them based on their position, then you are discriminating. That must be an awfully difficult position to maintain. Do you refuse to do business with yourself?
"Tell me Shapley...how do you feel about transgendered individuals?"
I generally don't give them much thought, unless they make an issue of themselves.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:47 AM
Hypocrite. -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:42 PM
Shapley...apparently someone is name calling... -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:20 AM
Says the person who chastised another for posting about anything but "cakes" - and then went on to talk about books and pizzas.
Hypocrite.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:57 AM
I understood the pizza place shut down because the phones would not stop with ugly comment and threats plus many bogus phone orders.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:10 PM
"Maybe you should refrain from telling other people how to live their religion."
Don't believe that was ever done. It would seem that the issue is that the baker feels that his Bible tells him that homosexuals are evil, and that these two asking to buy a wedding cake are clearly "unrepentant sinners" so he makes a "judgment" to refuse their request.
Unfortunately, other parts of the Bible caution you against "judging" others.
The practice of "shunning unrepentant sinners" may be common in Iran, Afghanistan, or "ISIS-stan" and maybe even in Amish country, but it should not be the case in 21st Century American bakeries or pizza joints.
Then the question comes up asking how does a baker determine whether the next "sinner" is "unrepentant" or not. Maybe it's like a "breatherlizer" test or "DNA swab."
In any case, the baker is in the business of making cakes, and is not saddled with the responsibility of "judging other" or even "casting the first stone."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:12 PM
"Do you understand discrimination, Shapley?"
Of course I do, though perhaps not the same as you understand it.
People discriminate daily. It is a natural thing, and sometimes a necessary one. Not all discrimination is bad, and not all discrimination is good. When one buys a home, they typically discriminate in choosing a "good" neighborhood, near a "good" school, with "good" access to "good" facilities, etc. That is discrimination, and there is nothing wrong with it. I do not owe it to anyone to move into a crime-ridden neighborhood with poor services just so I won't be viewed as being "discriminating".
When I vacation, I choose my destination discriminatingly - looking for a destination that provides a safe and enjoyable vacation experience. I do not owe it to poverty-stricken areas to vacation so they can benefit from my vacation dollars.
Are you going to try to tell me that you do not discriminate in your life?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:13 PM
"It would seem that the issue is that the baker feels that his Bible tells him that homosexuals are evil,..."
I don't believe that term was used.
"YOU seem to enjoy deciding how others feel, posting your decided feelings as their own, and reveling in how you are superior to that!"
Not really. You wrote: "Memories Pizza in Indiana refused to cater a gay wedding [Not true!]. This was a shoddy (just reading the reviews and ratings) restaurant about to close anyway [You know this based on what?]...they professed this on the coattails of Indiana legislation for publicity and donations [I have seen no reports of them asking for donations. A gofundme page was set up by a reporter for The Blaze and another conservative group, but there is no report of the pizzeria asking for help that I have discovered]. Playing (preying) on the religious right wing for help. I wouldn't do business with this place either FFF, hypocrites!" [The basis for my statement that you are proclaiming some sort of moral superiority.]
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:20 PM
"Unfortunately, other parts of the Bible caution you against "judging" others."
Why is that "unfortunate"?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:23 PM
"The practice of "shunning unrepentant sinners" may be common in Iran, Afghanistan, or "ISIS-stan" and maybe even in Amish country, but it should not be the case in 21st Century American bakeries or pizza joints."
Says who? You? Again, you are telling people how they are to live their religion. Should we have a law telling us which interpretation of the Bible is authorized in 21st Century American bakeries or pizza joints?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:25 PM
"Then the question comes up asking how does a baker determine whether the next "sinner" is "unrepentant" or not."
It's quite simple: If homosexuality is a sin, and they are celebrating a "homosexual marriage", then they do not appear to be repentant regarding their homosexuality, no?
It think if someone holds an adultery party, it is a fair bet they are not repentant regarding adultery. If they post an abortion announcement of their facebook status, announcing the slaughter of their unborn child, they are probably not repentant regarding the abortion. It does not take a mind-reader to figure some things out.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:28 PM
"In any case, the baker is in the business of making cakes, and is not saddled with the responsibility of "judging other" or even "casting the first stone"."
Catering a wedding, or providing a wedding cake for one, generally entails entering the reception hall and even attending the reception, which in itself serves as an acknowledgement of the validity of the event.
Now, I can refuse to attend a gay wedding, and my regrets would likely not be seen as discriminatory, if I did not state something in the RSVP which condemned the union. (I have known people who have refused to attend weddings because of such things as out-of-wedlock births and or pre-nuptial living arrangements, so one need not pretend such things are unique to gay weddings). No one has the right to have their wedding approved of by everyone who might be asked to attend and/or serve at it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:34 PM
"You have no basis, I wouldn't do business with anyone who professes racism as their creed."
And that is discriminatory, whether you want to admit it or not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:35 PM
"I read the reviews, Shapley. The had one star out of four, before they were yelp bombed yesterday."
Really? I looked at their yelp page: they had two reviews prior to the controversy: 1 four star and 1 five star. They have no reviews on Tripadvisor.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:39 PM
"To me , this isn't right . He has the free choice of lifestyle just as everyone else ."
He does, but public lewdness is against the law, and that is what the arrests at Cape Park are usually about. Police began patrols at the "Fruit Loop" in the park a couple of decades ago because of complaints from citizens that lewd activity and propositioning of park patrons was taking place. Such arrests are in the public record.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:41 PM
Do you know what moral and ethical principles are? -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:20 AM
Do you? Who supported a $60 million fine, a four-year postseason ban on football, a reduction in the number of scholarship players a team could field, placed the program on probation for five years and ruined a community of fans and alumni for many years...
all for the actions of ONE man? Is that "moral and ethical"? Do you favor group punishment of tens of thousands of INNOCENT people for the actions of one man?
Apparently so. I won't use the "H" word here...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:55 PM
"My choice is because of the individual merit of Memories Pizza and their professed racist views."
Are so called gays a race now that you use racist?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 1:05 PM
What % of people make up this large vocal minority that the left nuts support to get their way over others?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 1:07 PM
It's all about free speech till someone disagrees.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 1:22 PM
"No Shapley, discrimination is based on class or category. If I refused to go to all pizza place because of this one, I would be discriminating."
You are claiming you would refuse to go to this pizza parlor because of their religious views. That is discrimination. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but do not try to pretend it is anything else, because discrimination is what it is.
It is no different than Commonsensematters' claim to know what religious views are acceptable in 21st Century America. He claims it is something else, but that is what it is: he is trying to dictate which religious views are acceptable and which are not in America as he views it. The sad part is he can't see how wrong that view is.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 2:01 PM
"He was alledged to have participated , there were no official or formal charges against him . He was outed by the media ."
The media reports arrests. For good or ill, they are part of the public record.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 2:02 PM
"The average rating was 1."
Only after the 1st of April, when the attacks began. Prior to then, there were only two reviews, both good.
They have purged them all now.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 2:03 PM
"My choice is because of the individual merit of Memories Pizza and their professed racist views."
Racist views? I have heard no mention of race in the discussion at all. There is no homosexual race. Such a thing would seem to be biologically impossible.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 2:04 PM
I was up that way last year, barely a stone's throw from Walkerton. It is Amish country up there. We toured an Amish Farm, visited their shops and dined at an Amish restaurant. They are very nice people. If they are racist, it did not show except in the lack of black people living in the area. There were several black visitors, and they seemed to be treated no differently than the white folk.
It's hardly surprising that there aren't many black people living in the area, since the lands there have been handed down within the families for generations. I do not know how many, if any, black people have sought inclusion in the Amish culture.
I didn't ask any of the visitors whether or not they were gay. I didn't see any of the Amish people ask them that, either. No one was run out of a restaurant or shop while I was there.
I think it's good to expose oneself to different cultures, and the Amish culture is a bit different than I am accustomed to.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 2:15 PM
Based on the ratings of various sites, Memories Pizza had pre-interview ratings as follows:
5/5 based on 2 reviews at facebook.com
86% based on 65 reviews at menupix.com
4.5/5 based on 2 reviews at Yahoo.com
100% based on 16 ratings at urbanspoon.com
8.9/10 based on 2 reviews at MapQuest.com
I think you mischaracterized them based on your own biased views, rather than any factual reporting of their quality. Shame on you!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 2:40 PM
It's also worth noting that the "tolerant" left had to violate the various sites' requirements in order to post the negative reviews, since few, if any of them, had actually visited the facility they were reviewing.
But, the "tolerant" left believes it ought not be held to the same rules as the rest of society abides by, because their intentions are so pure.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 2:42 PM
Not true again,T the owners stated they would serve anyone but not cater a homosexual marriage reception.
Just wondering,tho,is pizza a staple of Indiana wedding receptions? My kind of reception. Better than rubber chicken and cold mashed taters.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:01 PM
"I never said that, Shapley...again you're projecting your own personal views into my words. I said I wouldn't go there...because they refuse to serve everyone equally, and have professed they would not serve (or cater) those who are gay."
Based on their religious views. The will not cater a gay wedding because it is counter to their religious views. That's what the law is all about, and that's what the discussion is all about. So, no matter how you are parsing it, the bottom line is you are rejecting them because of their religious views.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:02 PM
I am only judging my own feelings, which is my right to do...I would not patronize an establishment if I know (which we now do) they would discriminate on who they serve.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:13 PM
Theorist,
Certainly not doing business with any merchant is your right and your privilege. Now where do the rights of the merchant stand when it comes to doing business with you? Many, or most of them are individual citizens also. Should they be required to serve you regardless of your demands on their beliefs? Is that not hypocrisy to demand that another go against his/her principles when you refuse to abandon your own. Are you so egotistic that you think you are so superior in your beliefs over those of another?
I find you to be a very intolerant person with no place in your life for an opinion that differs from your own. Were you an only child, used to getting things your way through childhood?
And what happened to yesterday's declaration that this thread was about cake?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:04 PM
"I read the reviews, shame on you! I will see if I can find the sheet again...."
I rather doubt that you read the reviews before the yelpbombing began, because I rather doubt that you have even heard of the place before the yelpbombing began. The 6500+ reviews (some bad, some good, nearly all fraudulent) began pouring in yesterday, and have continued through today. This morning, I was able to skip to the last page and read the two reviews that predated 4/1/2015, one 4 star and one 5 star (which would be consistent with the 4.5/5 rating at Yahoo!).
I suspect that the two reviewers who reviewed at facebook, Yahoo!, and MapQuest are the same people, and might even work there. The Pizza parlor appears to be an unknown entity until the brouhaha began. Amish Country in Northern Indiana isn't particularly noted for being full of computer geeks.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:08 PM
"Going to their page, they don't even offer catering??? Now, I wonder why they brought all this on for something they don't offer to anyone??...shameless attempt at grabbing funds???"
They answered an interviewer's question. And, again, you falsely accuse them of "grabbing funds". What evidence have you of that?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:09 PM
"By 11 a.m. ET on Wednesday, the restaurant's Yelp page had 243 reviews with an average one-star rating, including criticism of the owner's statements to WBND and images of gay couples. The page had only two reviews before Wednesday. _ABC Radio"
So, by your own post they had only two ratings (which are not averaged in the quote) prior to the criticism comments beginning. Ergo, your statement was wrong, and your claim that it was on the brink of closing prior to the attack was based on no evidence whatsoever.
But, I will not expect you to admit to your error.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:13 PM
" I am rejecting them because they refuse to treat everyone equitably. (That's a period!)"
Apparently, by your own post, they do treat everyone equitably, since they do not refuse to wait on gay people and they don't offer catering to anyone, gay or straight.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:15 PM
"Would all of this come down to personal belief ?"
Yes, that is what it is all about. Some don't think the pizza parlor owners ought to be able to hold that belief and act upon it.
"And one side is claiming the other side's belief is wrong ? Not just the bakery but the gay community too ."
Yes, again. The one side believes they ought to be able to hold to their views. The other side believes they ought to be punished for holding those views. To me, it seems obvious which side is on the moral up-and-up here - the side that simply wants the freedom to stand for that which they stand for. The other side is morally adrift - demanding not only that they be forced to do that which violates their beliefs but also to be punished for holding those beliefs.
No one is harmed by not the refusal to cater the fictional wedding, but certainly harm has been done by those who are cyber-attacking and threatening the owners for holding that belief.
"So , who decides which belief is right ?"
No one. At least no one on this Earth. The law ought to come down on the side of religious freedom, since that is what the Constitution claims to uphold.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM
"I do not expect you to admit you do not know my thoughts either..."
But your posted quote refers only to the one-star rating when there were 243 ratings, including " including criticism of the owner's statements to WBND and images of gay couples". Hence it seems unlikely, in light of the other sites' high ratings, that it was 1 star prior to the yelpbombing (which was your claim).
You still have no basis for your claim they would likely have shut down anyway, do to the poor quality.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:25 PM
"....Either that, or you are defensively trying to stand your original mistake."
What mistake is that? You are the one clinging tenaciously to a claim that purely and simply is not supported by the evidence, including your own quote posted in support of it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:29 PM
Theorist, I brought up the Arkansas incident to simply provide an example....Shapley is correct, the constitution protects "your" religious freedom. The bottom line is it's okay for you to believe what you believe, and it's okay for someone to believe the exact opposite. If you don't want to patronize the restaurant fine. But that's where it should end. The owners have done nothing illegal and the free market will work itself out. Period!
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:49 PM
I also wonder why they offered sausage, beef, bacon and pepperoni as toppings? For shame, as the Bible explicitly forbids it (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21)....Another push to the shameless money grab scenario...
I am not going to judge their views...I might question them, but I would not purport to judge them.
Judging Christians for not following Jewish Old Testament Law while claiming not to be judging.
Claiming someone is dishonest in stating their opinion when asked.
Theorist, you seem determined to be witness against based upon your hate for anyone not advancing the far leftist agenda of a selfish minority.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 4:25 PM
Rick. Is gay a community?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 4:28 PM
Wheels: Welcome back from your long road trip, any problems going thru St. Louis?
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:14 AM
Thanks Semo471.
No problems coming through the St. Louis Traffic. I always take the 370 By Pass and try to time things so traffic is at it's least busy period. You do no go North on 55 in the early AM nor South in late PM. Same way with 370, all the traffic is coming in, in early AM and headed back out in late PM. Traffic was running about 5 miles or better over the speed limit and you needed to stay with it to prevent problems. Driving a motor home, I like to keep people from cutting in front of me so close that I can only see the roof of their car, that is why I try to keep the pace.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 4:30 PM
I have already accepted the fact I discriminate .
-- Posted by Dissident on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 4:57 PM
Everyone does Rick, including Theorist.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 5:06 PM
Wheels
Doesn't 370 come out at the Mall on hi-way 70 in St.Charles ?
I think I sneak through there too .
-- Posted by Dissident on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 4:34 PM
Rick,
I hate it when I post something stupid like that. 270, is what I meant to post. Yes and I surely remember 370 and the Missouri Highway Dept, I was close enough to be involved in condemnation of a portion of my property when they built the intersection at 70. What a mess that was, all but one property owner involved in that intersection chose condemnation because MSHD didn't want to pay replacement costs for the property they needed.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 5:09 PM
Rick. Is gay a community?-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 4:28 PM
OJ: There is a Gay, Michigan and a Gay City, Washington.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 5:19 PM
"270 can be madness between 44 and 70 , it's like survival of the fittest ."
Rick
Going to St. Charles, I always grab the Page Ave. Express... it has a number but I cannot remember it right now. I hop off on Muegge Road, catch the first Service Station and fuel up, because I can get through it, but barely. And I am then just a couple miles from where I park it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 6:45 PM
Do you know what moral and ethical principles are?
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 11:20 AM
Why yes I do. It's those things, based on his religious beliefs, that the baker was practicing when he refused a cake to the gay couple. Are you saying that he should have sold the gay couple a cake despite his moral and ethical priniples, thus violating those moral and ethical principles, thereby (according to your definition), making himself a hypocrite?
What it boils down to is the simple fact that you feel anyone who doesn't share your personal moral and ethical principles is bigoted and wrong.
Again, for some reason you feel it's ok to discriminate against the baker because he doesn't share your moral and ethical principles, but it's wrong for the baker to discriminate against the gay couple because he doesn't share the same moral and ethical principles as theirs.
Hypocrite.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:17 PM
My choice is because of the individual merit of Memories Pizza and their professed racist views.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 12:59 PM
What are these racist views that they profess?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:29 PM
Just wondering,tho,is pizza a staple of Indiana wedding receptions? My kind of reception. Better than rubber chicken and cold mashed taters.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:01 PM
Hell yeah . Toasted ravioli and mostaccioli too .
-- Posted by Dissident on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:07 PM
Toasted ravioli and mostaccioli. You most definitely have some St. Louis in you!!
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:36 PM
Well from what I heard a few minutes ago it looks like the Leftist Crusade against the Pizza Maker has started to backfire on them. Someone started a fund, today I believe, and over $300,000 has been collected to see to it the Pizza Maker can stay in business.
Wake up Christians, it is time to put a stop to the war on religion that is being waged by the Left.
It is pitiful to watch some on here who have fallen for the Secular Leftist's Propaganda to make war on anybody who has a religious thought in his/her body, and still proclaiming to be Christian themselves.
Any of you recognize yourselves here?
Wish Pizza wasn't perishable or I would order one. Maybe I could order one and have it dried, then I could start a collection and add it to the duck call I ordered from those colorful characters down in Louisiana or Mississippi, where ever they are. Duck Dynasty, that is the name of the program they are featured in and I never watch.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:39 PM
Semo, I have couple of female friends with first name Gay,but I also had a childhood male buddy with the name. We gave him a few kid hassles but that was before the word was stolen. Not too many hassles cause he was one tough SOB. It was his given first name. I always think of him when I hear Johnny Cash's "Boy Named Sue". Lost track of Gay years ago but I wonder if he goes by GW or something similar.
Back to pizza. The whole interview was a setup. The restaurant apparently has a Christian symbol in its advertising and signage so it was a prime target for the news team. The daughter was interviewed and having never been in such a situation told the truth. Unlike someone like Obama who lied about his same sex marriage until the polls were right. BTW,the fund for them has reached $300K and they are reopening. Just an example of the vitriol and hate a local HS woman coach posted on FB "Who wants to join me to go burn Memories Pzza to the ground". Boco Haram right here right now.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:46 PM
NO, you are wrong. I am rejecting them because they refuse to treat everyone equitably. (That's a period!)
I am not going to judge their views...I might question them, but I would not purport to judge them.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:13 PM
You claim that those who violate their principles are hypoctrites, yet expect that the baker violate his by not treating everyone equal including those who's lifestyle violates his principles.
And yes, you are judging the baker and pizza man's views.
I'm beginning to think that you're not that bright.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:50 PM
What are these racist views that they profess?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:29 PM
I don't expect we will get an answer.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:52 PM
and....Arkansas just passed the same type of Legislation as Indiana .
-- Posted by Dissident on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 3:28 PM
As do 19 or so other states which have similar laws. Wonder when the celebrities and corporate CEOs are going to announce their boycotts of all of these states as they have Indiana?
The CEO of Apple is boycotting Indiana for it's religious law allowing business owners to refuse service to homosexuals, yet continues to do business in Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punishable by death. Can anyone say hypocrite?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:00 PM
You would have to ask the baker and the god he worships.
Did someone ask you to be concerned about what I think? Pretty full of yourself. Hypocrite and egotist.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:08 PM
Come up with the reason you judged (which you claim you never do) the pizza folks to be racist?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:11 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 8:50 PM
FFF: Whose freedom supersedes the other freedom, the freedom to sell/serve your products (cakes) or the freedom to buy and not be turned down by the result of your religion or sexual preference. IMO, the seller/server rights are first....the gay buyer for example can buy from another baker.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:00 PM
FFF: Glad I switched to a Samsung phone and didn't purchase an IPhone 6.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:15 PM
Argue with some one else? That from you that have posted non stop all day with an absurd position and then went circles with yourself trying to convince yourself of your own flawed logic? Geeze, and how many definitions of racism can you make up?
Racism is the belief and practice of one race being superior to another or all others. There is nothing in this related to racism.
I'm not sure I'm completely familiar with the baker story but the pizza lady was set up by a smart-A reporter to start a controversy over the possibility that a democrat initiated law might not be supportive of giving gay people special rights over the majority which are Christian based in values. I haven't looked it up but suspect the governor is republican and anything republican is for far left politics which Theorist supports to attack with any means needed.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 10:07 PM
I would say Theorist has dug a pretty big hole with this one...:)
And Theorist, thanks again!
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 10:35 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 8:18 AM
Theorist: That's the way I feel about most of these threads anymore....waste of time, that's why the amount of my comments have decreased.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 8:41 AM
Racism occurs when people are classified into groups causing harm...could be based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, heritage etc. -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:15 PM
Probably one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen posted on here. To strengthen the "race card" throw a bunch of non-race characteristics into it.
If being against another religious beliefs on gay marriage is "racism" then you are - by your definition - racist.
Nuts.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 9:43 AM
It's the professional definition, what profession I can't imagine.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 9:49 AM
Racism is a social construct meaning the concept of race can be constructed or manipulated by society. Racism occurs when people are classified into groups causing harm...could be based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, heritage etc.
There should only be one race...humans. Demarcating people into various groups has and will have detrimental implications.
There you go Old John. I am done for the evening...argue with someone else.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:15 PM
Theorist,
I know you have announced your intention of not posting today, but I am very curious on your first paragraph above. Is this what you are claiming is the "professional" definition of racism? If so I would like to know where this is found. To me, that pretty much leaves the definition open to be changed today, tomorrow or whenever to suit a particular purpose. Nothing you could set your watch by, so to speak.
Your 2nd paragraph would seem to indicate that we should all be just alike and there would be no differences in any of us. Even an anthill has it's class distinctions. There is the Queen(s), the Workers and the Males. Each have their own duties though the Workers are divided up into classes of their own, such as gathering food, building the anthill or guarding the anthill.
It would seem your philosophy on the human race would relegate it to a lower place in God's overall plan than a colony of ants. Something akin to a mindless society that needs someone to constantly dictate to us our positions in life.
I am not trying to mess with you here, I am serious. I do not understand your, and maybe the entire Left's, philosophy on life.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 10:16 AM
Something akin to a mindless society that needs someone to constantly dictate to us our positions in life.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 10:16 AM
It's that sentence right there that explains their philosophy in life...Pretty sad and scary if you ask me.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 10:24 AM
How about the gays keep there lifestyle and sexual preferences to themselves and just shut up!
What rights don't they have? Ok, marriage. If they want to get married and be miserable like many heterosexuals then who gives a darn. I don't! If I own a bakery and want to make money, I will not refuse to make and sell a cake to anyone. If they want something written on it that would be considered derogatory by me or others, I would sell them the material to do so and let them decorate it themselves! Again, to those of you who live the gay lifestyle, I am tired of hearing your whining and seeing your lifestyle all over TV and many other medias. Your lifestyle is a super minority and in my opinion contributes nothing to the true meaning of life.
-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 10:25 AM
"How about the gays keep there lifestyle and sexual preferences to themselves and just shut up!"
Amen!!
I would be happy to reciprocate.
I will quit trying to tell all my Baptist friends that they must eat fish on Friday. ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 10:37 AM
"Have nice day and wear your boots"????
I'm thinking without her today I can take them off. The "stuff" won't be so deep.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 10:56 AM
"I'm thinking without her today I can take them off. The "stuff" won't be so deep."
Oh Boy!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 10:58 AM
On Good Friday and this weekend we should all try to get along but then Monday anything goes.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 11:09 AM
Semo471,
Don't drop your guard. Might see a return of Micky if you do. ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 11:13 AM
Good Friday must be an omen...
The Governor's figuratively thrown the baker under the bus, and literally told him to "just go ahead and bake the dumb cake."
He implied that Hoosiers won't discriminate against other Hoosiers, so that must be a good thing.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 11:47 AM
Wheels: Point taken.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 11:47 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 11:47 AM
What did he do, cave to the vocal minority? I suppose he thinks they will re-elect him for his next term.
Kind of reminds me of Ferguson. make enough noise as a minority and you can get your way.
The positive thing, it won't change the way I live.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 12:19 PM
The positive thing, it won't change the way I live.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 12:19 PM
Not yet...Wheels, you know as well as I do, this is how they get the ball rolling.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 12:23 PM
Wheels, I like fish any day of the week.:)
And ditto to what GREYWOLF wrote.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 12:50 PM
Wheels, I like fish any day of the week.:)And ditto to what GREYWOLF wrote.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 12:50 PM
See I convinced you. ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 2:28 PM
"...On Blacks To Take Up Arms..."
So what happens when the first concealed carry black guy feels threatened by a white guy, "stands his ground" and shoots and kills the white guy?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 2:39 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 2:39 PM
If it's legit, more power to him.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 2:54 PM
Common, That's when Obama would be leaving on another golf trip and the AG would announce cancelling all investigations regarding Emails, especially if it was a weekend or holiday.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 3:17 PM
So what happens when the first concealed carry black guy feels threatened by a white guy, "stands his ground" and shoots and kills the white guy?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 2:39 PM
I would say in the case of Ferguson, a white man is more likely to be shot by a young black punk with a stolen firearm or at best a firearm bought on the black market. Forget about the Concealed Carry Permit. The punk type doesn't qualify for one in most if not all cases, let alone a legally owned firearm.
The decent black folks of Ferguson, while possibly having acquired a CCW Permit and a legally owned handgun are of little concern. They do not go around brandishing firearms. And should a white punk be caught breaking into their home, let the paramedics or the morgue handle him when the homeowner is through with him.
Ferguson's problem is all about punks of any color who reside or visit there, not the law abiding citizens.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 3:57 PM
So far as the rest of the country, outside of Ferguson. If a black man has a clear record he should be able to own firearms and take the necessary class and earn his CCW permit just like anyone else.
I would not worry about that type person.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 4:02 PM
So what happens when the first concealed carry black guy feels threatened by a white guy, "stands his ground" and shoots and kills the white guy?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 2:39 PM
Then the black guy gets applauded for protecting himself and his loved ones. White folk then go on about their everyday businness.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 9:50 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 8:06 AM
"Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice's civil rights division said in papers filed in a federal court in Macon, Georgia, that the refusal of adequate treatment for a recognized mental illness amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution."
FFF,
Probably just as well that I wasn't Warden, if that prisoner had wanted some treatment, I would have given Him/Her some shock treatment in a psycho ward.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 9:04 AM
If you go to their page, they do not cater at all...so why did they make it a point to proclaim this?
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 8:23 AM
Theorist,
Perhaps you haven't been listening to the part about they were questioned by a reporter looking for a story and was asked the question.
They answered honestly, do they get any points for not lying? What makes you think they were trying to make a point?
They could have lied like a lot of the Bigoted Leftists are doing in their treatment of the folks at the Pizza Restaurant.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 9:11 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 8:23 AM
Theorist: Maybe their web page is not updated to their catering option....where is your "love and acceptance" for these business folks or does it apply only to the gays.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 9:37 AM
Instead, they avowed they would not cater to homosexuals...bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ....yes they are!
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 9:24 AM
Theorist that definition makes you a Bigot as well. I have never seen anyone more intolerant of other people's positions than you are.
"I will be honest and say I do not know how the question was phrased...but they could have been polite and answered, "we don't cater to anyone"."
Yes they could have answered that way, or they could have answered by telling the trouble maker/reporter to leave their restaurant and go find a story elsewhere. But they answered as honestly as they could it appears to me and it offended a very vocal minority who in my opinion is just looking for fault with someone.
Yesterday I posed some questions of you, because I truly do not understand what you are saying sometimes.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 10:16 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 9:39 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 10:45 AM
Theorist,
Thank you for the response. I will look into "Race, Ethnicity and Gender. Not sure I would be in total agreement with the "flexible outlook" part.
I agree with change, on many matters, some not so much. There are moral principles that I will not compromise on. There are material things I am eager to accept change on. Am I confused.... maybe.
But as an explanation, lest some come back and say that I have a horse and buggy attitude on life in general. I accept technological advances in society readily. I bought my first Computer shortly after Radio Shack brought out their Model I. I was leading in my town and my industry to bring my company accounting system to the computer. Crude as it was in the day.
Regarding No. 2. We are all different and have our own individuality in my opinion.
And there I believe is where people get divided into different groups. How can they not be? So far as equal.... we are not all equal.
As a for instance. I have a picture of Einstein's office on my Computer Desktop to remind me of this. Einstein and I are definitely equals in how messy we keep our desks, from appearances his system is just like mine... we pile it instead of file it.
Now our differences... Einstein was so far ahead of me in IQ and knowledge the picture lets me know and understand where I am inferior. I believe God designed both of us, but he didn't make me nearly as smart as Einstein or quite as homely.
But that does not make me look up to the man, he is still just a man. Respect him yes.
Hero worship of any mortal man or woman is just the opposite of looking down on people of lessor stature in my opinion. Respect both of them and expect them to respect you back.
Maybe it is a failing of mine, but if I get no respect from others, I have a tendency to treat them likewise.
I mention hero worship because I see it everywhere. A personality, if it be a President or a movie star, or a sports figure. I would not drive across town to listen to them if they were speaking, no matter who they were. Does not mean I either respect or disrespect them.
And another fault of mine... I cannot say in 25 words or less, what three pages will cover just as well. :-(
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 12:06 PM
And another fault of mine... I cannot say in 25 words or less, what three pages will cover just as well. :-(-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 12:06 PM
Wheels: You may have noticed that my posts are short compared to most on here....the reason being in the mfg businesses that I were involved in - short memos and letters were wanted and expected.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 12:49 PM
Wheels: You may have noticed that my posts are short compared to most on here....the reason being in the mfg businesses that I were involved in - short memos and letters were wanted and expected.
-- Posted by semo471 on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 12:49 PM
Semo471,
People in my business also wanted short memos and letters as well... but they did not always get them from me.
If I had dissatisfaction with a product or person I was dealing with, it sometimes took me a couple of pages to stab them in the heart with my pen. ;-)
I think back on some of the letters I had to write when our main supplier was bought out by one of those large firms who bought out smaller companies then raped and pillaged.
They would promise you anything to shut you up and then do just the opposite. I finally found out the only defense against broken promises was to write a letter outlining our deal in detail immediately after it was made, send it to the deal maker and then CC: about four or more layers of bosses over the deal maker's head. Making a few of them BCC: made the deal even more secure. I think corporate slang for that was papering the files.
May have been messy, but it insured the deal was kept.
Buyouts like that could be very nerve wracking on both long time employees and customers equally.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 1:21 PM
Freedom, Now taxpayers are ordered by a judge in California to foot the bill for a sex change operation for a murderer.
Wheels, I once wrote a three page letter that took me a week to write but it said what I meant and was concise. I got back the response I wanted too.
Theorist, I still think you are mistaken about what racism is, based on influence by those that want to wrongly inflate the peculiar people to a status of a racial and/or religious minority. Homosexuality is not a race or religion. It is a minority that gets too much attention by those that pretend and condemn their superior tolerance in societal diversity.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 6:01 PM
Freedom, Now taxpayers are ordered by a judge in California to foot the bill for a sex change operation for a murderer.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 6:01 PM
I hope you agree with the judge, that the taxpayers are responsible for footing the bill for the sex change. Otherwise you'll be branded a racist.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 6:19 PM
Not sure what the game is with the sex change nonsense. May the he she is trying to get early release.
I knew a guy many years ago who studied the bible while in prison to get out an early release for good behavior.
He preached and dealt in scrap materials when I knew him. He would come around to buy scrap copper from us. It wasn't that I didn't trust him.... him being a preacher and all. But I did always weigh myself on his scales before selling him any scrap.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 6:57 PM
"Racism occurs when people are classified into groups causing harm...could be based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, heritage etc. -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 9:15 PM"
The root word of "racism" is "race". If it ain't based on race, it ain't racism.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 11:26 PM
That means that one can only be "racist" against caucasoids, mongoloids or negroids.
Unfortunately, today people equate such groups as Latins, Jews, Arabs, Indians, Semites, Hawaiians, etc. as being "races" when they are not.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 7:58 AM
Not true. There is such classifications as the Hawaiian Race, Polynesian Race, Irish Race, etc., and racism is practiced against them. There is no such thing as a "Homosexual race". In fact, I am quite sure that would be biologically impossible.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 8:04 AM
That is to say, there are susbets wuthin the major classifications of the races.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 8:05 AM
My opinion; Jews are of the oldest race existing.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 8:57 AM
"Wheels, I once wrote a three page letter that took me a week to write but it said what I meant and was concise. I got back the response I wanted too."
Old John
Meant to respond to this yesterday but got sidetracked.
Sometimes it takes a little time to get all your thoughts together and it is important to not leave anything out if you are going to get your point across.
I used to have a little Latin verse on my desk as a reminder instead of my name, I could still remember my name, most of the time back in that day.
It said..... "Illegitimus Non Carborundum"
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 9:40 AM
Wheels, That could apply to these threads at times. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 9:50 AM
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 9:50 AM
Yes it could. Now I am wondering what I did with the plaque. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 9:58 AM
Wheels, May need to leave it lost, could be deemed racist by the professional definition.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 10:14 AM
Old John
Received an e-mail this morning explaining the first usage of the term Politically Correct. I know it to be correct because it came from the internet..... but think I will try to verify it for my faithful critics.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 10:37 AM
Wheels, I looked it up although I had an idea what the subject might be.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 10:40 AM
It said..... "Illegitimus Non Carborundum"
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 9:40 AM
Wheels: Had to look this up on Google and was surprised when it said: "Julius Caesar applied for Pinkycare after his stabbing".
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 11:28 AM
It wasn't silly in 1993, when Bill Clinton signed the Federal version of the legislation, and it isn't silly now. As I said, it would be, had the lawsuit not been brought against the baker, or had the courts not sided with the couple. But the lawsuit happened and the courts ruled, and so this matter is not silly.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:16 PM
Not the same law. You haven't read the Federal RFFA and the IN RFFA, have you?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 4:38 PM
Who are you, ot I, or the courts to tell them they must associate with them in order to satisfy some perceived goal of inclusion?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 10:30 PM
Funny you would say that. The IN law gives the courts the power the determine what is and what isn't a sincerely held religious belief.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 4:42 PM
"The IN law gives the courts the power the determine what is and what isn't a sincerely held religious belief."
No it doesn't. It merely expands those beliefs to include views not specifically outlined in organized religion. This allows those with "unorthodox" views to be afforded the same protection as those who are part of an organized religious movement.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 4:55 PM
"Not the same law."
The primary difference rests in the Indiana extension of the law to corporations. However, the courts decision in the Hobby Lobby case indicates that they have merely codified that which the law has already stated: corporations are people, too.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:01 PM
he is trying to dictate which religious views are acceptable and which are not in America as he views it. The sad part is he can't see how wrong that view is.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 2, 2015, at 2:01 PM
He is powerless to do so. The Indiana law, on the other hand, gives this power to the bench.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:06 PM
No it doesn't. It merely expands those beliefs to include views not specifically outlined in organized religion. This allows those with "unorthodox" views to be afforded the same protection as those who are part of an organized religious movement.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 4:55 PM
Yes it does. You're aren't reading it correctly.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:09 PM
The primary difference rests in the Indiana extension of the law to corporations. However, the courts decision in the Hobby Lobby case indicates that they have merely codified that which the law has already stated: corporations are people, too.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:01 PM
Swing and a miss. There are more differences.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:10 PM
However, the courts decision in the Hobby Lobby case indicates that they have merely codified that which the law has already stated: corporations are people, too.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:01 PM
Hobby Lobby only applied to privately owned, closely-held corporations. The IN law goes even further: "any legal entity."
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:12 PM
Old John
Received an e-mail this morning explaining the first usage of the term Politically Correct. I know it to be correct because it came from the internet..... but think I will try to verify it for my faithful critics.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 10:37 AM
Old John,
Been out to celebrate Easter with the family and back home to check this out.
Got this e-mail this morning that states Harry Truman coined the term.... political correctness was a doctrine fostered by a "delusional, illogical minority" and promoted by a "sick" mainstream media etc. etc.
Find nothing on Snopes to verify the e-mail and some question on Truth or Fiction but they are checking it out. Go to the link below if you want to read the whole thing. I cannot post it, since somebody will surely get their panties in a wad and complain about it.
Click on "President Harry Truman Defined Political Correctness in Telegraph ..."
I have heard this attributed to a college student but first time to Harry Truman. I will withhold judgement on if or not he said it.... but sure sounds like Harry Truman.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:17 PM
Hobby Lobby only applied to privately owned, closely-held corporations. -- Posted by The Spaniard on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:12 PM
Your opinion - gonna take more than that L'Spagnoli...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 5:27 PM
When is a 7' tall white guy a "F******n N******a"?
When a black sore loser calls him one.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 6:44 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 7:29 PM
Looks kike Ike strikes out again in the technical part but the whole thing is ignorance gone to seed from the day the democrats came up with such garbage.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 7:55 PM
When is a 7' tall white guy a "F******n N******a"?
When a black sore loser calls him one.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 6:44 PM
And you can bet the farm if roles were reversed, "they" would be calling for Kaminsky's, Bo Ryan's, and the University of Wisconsin's head....Have I ever said hypocrits?😊
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 8:44 PM
You bet,Bon. The dumb*ss since apologized so it's all good in Libtard World.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 8:54 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 8:44 PM
Bon: Why isn't Theorist saying that was a racist statement....hypocrite.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 9:18 AM
" The IN law goes even further: "any legal entity."
As it should. The "closely held" limitation is unnecessarily restrictive. The rights of citizens to hold religious views and act upon them ought not be limited to only a select groups.
Corporations are created by the state, and the state ought to be able to define the limitations they impose, or do not impose, upon those who chose to apply for the benefits of incorporation. In this case, the state of Indiana is extending the protections afforded individual citizens to those citizens and the entities with which they associate, as they ought.
I do not know where the idea that one need check their religious views at the door when they become a business establishment, but the state of Indiana is now saying that is not the case for those who wish to do business in Indiana. Good for them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 9:59 AM
-- Posted by semo471 on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 9:18 AM
That's exactly my point semo...I could care less what the kid said and the Wisconsin player and coached handled it like they should have. But like I said earlier. We all know what would have happened if roles were reversed...The double standard in this country has become comical.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 10:41 AM
The double standard in this country has become comical.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 10:41 AM
Yes it has. And totally out of proportion to what our real problems are in this country.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 10:57 AM
Rick, I suspect you are the only one that watched that cartoon show.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 11:55 AM
So what happens when the first concealed carry black guy feels threatened by a white guy, "stands his ground" and shoots and kills the white guy?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 3, 2015, at 2:39 PM
The same thing when it's reversed. The bad guy takes a dirt nap.
But of course when a racist like you sees a black man with a gun.........
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 2:08 PM
"So what happens when the first concealed carry black guy feels threatened by a white guy, "stands his ground" and shoots and kills the white guy?"
"We all know what would have happened if roles were reversed...The double standard in this country has become comical."
A minor scuffle in a Walmart is one thing. Had the black guy killed the white guy, you may well have seen your "double standard."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 4:43 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 4:43 PM
Since it did not happen we can all suppose what might have happened... I think nothing would have changed from what has happened except an ambulance or the morgue may have been called in addition to the police. And the honky would have been in the hospital or the morgue instead of jail.
Why would you suppose it would have gone down any differently?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 4:52 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 4:43 PM
Common: Let's see, would Pres. Pinky get on TV and vent his feelings, would Eric Holder start an investigation, would the Rev. Al Sharpton appear in person to give support....the answer is NO to all of the above. Now then what would happen if the KKK appeared at the scene to demand justice for the white guy....the liberals would have a panic attack and call racism, racism get Eric Holder on the phone.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 6:45 PM
The squeakiest wheel gets the oil .
-- Posted by Dissident on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 6:55 PM
I'm getting precious little oil Rick. Think I should squeak louder?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 7:12 PM
Won't help. You're just like me.....an old white guy.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 8:58 PM
Regrets,
Do you ever get the feeling we are an endangered species?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 9:03 PM
Yes. The biggest threat is those years passing by. Then Common and the other libs can turn the US into a utopia. As soon as they pay off the $17+ trillion..
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 10:05 PM
Common is going to be totally lost when Little Barry's term is up and he fades into history. Of course maybe there will be someone out here with a name like Righty (the opposite of Lefty) who can still be bringing up his failures and shortcomings 8 years later.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 10:22 PM
Now we find out the bakery didn't commit any civil rights violations. And this is straight from drinkprogress.com
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 10:45 PM
"As soon as they pay off the $17+ trillion."
The Keynesians don't think that's necessary. Gov't spending drives GDP (it's part of the calculation), so they figure borrowing to spend is a good thing.
They don't understand the difference between good spending and bad. Good spending provides essential services: roads, police protection, defense, etc. Bad spending takes money from producers and gives it to non-producers. Bad spending actually harms GDP, but they don't calculate it that way.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 6:24 AM
"As soon as they pay off the $17+ trillion."
The Keynesians don't think that's necessary. Gov't spending drives GDP (it's part of the calculation), so they figure borrowing to spend is a good thing.
They don't understand the difference between good spending and bad. Good spending provides essential services: roads, police protection, defense, etc. Bad spending takes money from producers and gives it to non-producers. Bad spending actually harms GDP, but they don't calculate it that way.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 6:24 AM
Jack Phillips' case is an example of why we every state ought to have a law such as Indiana's. He did not refuse to sell them a cake, he refused to sell them a cake decorated in a manner which is celebratory of their gay marriage.
They were not harmed by the refusal, they obtained the desired cake elsewhere. The lawsuit was merely designed to punish them for not giving them what they wanted, in violation of his ideology.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 9:20 AM
I think, the Baker should sell to anybody that can pay for his normal stock of goods. Special orders, should be left up to the discretion of the Baker. Also, the Baker/Store Owner should be able to determine what is and what is not acceptable behavior on the part of their customers. The "no shoes, no shirt, no service" rule so to speak.
During my years in business, I had the distinct displeasure of having to tell a relative few people to take their business elsewhere, because of behavior.... and it had nothing to do with sexual preferences.
I also believe a business that caters has the right to chose if or not he/she will cater to certain occasions where he/she feels practices unacceptable to his/her moral standards are going to be carried out. That could be a meeting of the KKK or a Homo Wedding, or a variety of other practices. As a Christian, I would find it objectionable to take part in say, something as ridiculous as the Baptism of a pet. If I was a Baker, should I be forced to cater this kind affair of even if I did catering?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 10:10 AM
"Wrong Shapley...Mayhap you didn't read the article either?"
I read an article. Mayhap not the article you read. There is more than one side to the story.
"In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith.
"Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which eventually ruled against Phillips. One of the commissioners who ruled against him later compared him to a Nazi. The same-sex couple was easily able to obtain their desired cake from another nearby baker.
"Granting Phillips' request that CADA be enforced in a manner that respects his free speech and free exercise rights will not undermine the protections public accommodations and other laws provide against discrimination," the reply brief filed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig explains. "It will simply recognize and reaffirm that such laws violate the First Amendment when they are 'applied to expressive activity.'"
The brief further explains that the rights Phillips seeks to vindicate are the same ones that would "protect the right of Colorado baker Marjorie Silva to decline to create a cake that references biblical teaching about sex and marriage based on her 'standards of offensiveness,' or a gay Colorado photographer to decline an offer from Westboro Baptist Church to shoot photos at its latest demonstration. These are just results that rightly and universally protect conscience. Phillips' conscience is deserving of the same respect and protection."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 10:27 AM
"nor is it Shapleys'... the guy who says he is for less government control..."
And which do you think comes down on the side of government control - the side that says a person can decide for whom he wants to bake a cake or the side that says the government can decide for whom one must bake a cake? Methinks my view is consistent.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 10:28 AM
"The fact that he (the baker) chose not to bake them a cake because they were 'gay' is the reason he was served the suit...there was no discussion on what the cake would entail..."
Wrong. He clearly stated he could not bake them a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony, according to the Global Dispatch article.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 10:32 AM
"Wrong Shapley...Mayhap you didn't read the article either?"
I have no idea to which article you are referring, since I see no link related to the Jack Phillips' case other than the one I linked.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 10:34 AM
I will say that I am glad that the video store in Fruitland closed down. I boycotted their business once they posted a big "No Concealed Guns Allowed". Again, I chose not to give them my business but I did not throw a huge fit and sue to make them see things the way I do. Libs are all for understanding, as long as it is the Conservatives and Christians who are doing it and not them.
-- Posted by foreman on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 8:36 PM
"No one is asking anyone to practice anything they do not believe in, no one is asking them to promote something they don't believe in"
Yes they are. If you don't believe in to guys acting like that are a he and she (and vise-versa) you should be able to say no. The same if I wanted a cake with Happy KKK day on it.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 8:46 PM
Oops. Bad keyboard skills
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 9:49 PM
"... but if you let one person drink from the fountain...who are you to judge the next person is not welcome to drink?"
If I am called upon to draw the water from the fountain, it is my choice for whom I draw it, because I am a free man. I do not judge who drinks from the well, only for whom I draw the water.
By the same token, the baker does not judge who eats cake, only for whom he bakes it.
"No one is asking anyone to practice anything they do not believe in, ..."
Yes, they are. Just because you can't see it does not mean it is not so.
"How, pray tell, does baking a cake promote same sex ceremonies??"
I do not pretend to know. But I am not so vain as to suppose that, because I cannot see it, it cannot be done.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 9:59 PM
"The article that We Regret referenced yesterday evening, Shapley."
Well, perhaps you excuse my confusion since the artocle We Regret posted was actually about a different incident, and only mentioned Mr. Phillips' case as a comparison. In that article, it says the judge concluded that merely baking a cake does not promote an agenda, but the ignores the fact that wedding cake designers are generally expected to decorate, deliver, and display the cake, which generally entails attendance at the reception. That can easily be construed as joining in the celebration, or at least validation of it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 7, 2015, at 10:09 PM
"None of the decorating, delivering and displaying was discussed...and definitley not attending the reception, which is never required unless they are also hired to cate"
And you know this how? It is not mentioned in the article. The article I linked says the conversation lasted about 30 seconds. That's not a long conversation, but it is long enough to convey some such information. You seem to have gleaned a lot of information from that one article.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 8:01 AM
"Remember the story of the lady at the well?"
Yes, it came to mind as I wrote that. I also seem to recall that Jesus told her of her sins and admonished her to sin no more.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 8:12 AM
"None of the decorating, delivering and displaying was discussed...and definitley not attending the reception, which is never required unless they are also hired to cater."
Given that he offered to sell them other baked goods in the store, but refused to bake them the cake, there would seem to be more to it than a simple, undecorated cake.
In short, he didn't refuse them finished goods, he refused them his labour to produce new goods. He ought to have that right, as a free man.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 8:24 AM
When I am out and about in town, I routinely hold open doors for people entering or leaving by the same door as I. However, upon holding the door for this person or that, I do not feel that I am obligating myself to hold it open for anybody and everybody that wants to enter or leave via that particular door.
I extend my services freely, and I withhold them just as freely. It is up to me to determine for whom I hold the door and for whom I do not. Nor do I owe it to anyone to explain my justification. If I open it for an attractive woman but not for an obese man, that is my prerogative, even if it may be construed as discriminatory, judgmental, or sexist. If open it for feeble-looking persons but not for persons who appear able-bodied, that is my decision. If I decide to hold for one able-bodied person, I am not obligated to hold it for every able-bodied person.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 8:30 AM
Are the signs which say "No Shoes, No shirt, No service" discriminatory? I say they are, but so what?
Many establishments have signs which say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Should they have that right? Typically, they exercise that right only to those who appear troublesome, intoxicated, or who may have a known habit of not paying for what they order, but the reservation of that right does not limit it to any particular situation.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 8:32 AM
He neither judged her nor condemned her... She was told to go and sin no more...-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 8:47 AM
He absolutely judged her. Just reread the Bible - or your own admission above.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 9:00 AM
Love and acceptance.-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 8:47 AM
Theorist: Love and acceptance - good grief. What about love and acceptance for those who differ with you concerning gays and same sex marriages.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 9:11 AM
What Theorist fails to realize(or doesn't want to admit) is Jesus didn't operate with the power of the Roman sword...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 9:31 AM
-- Posted by semo471 on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 9:11 AM --
And there you see the problem. Theorist seems to have no problem judging those she seems to think to be judgmental. She sees not problem in admonishing them to change their ways to accept what she sees as right and correct, unwilling to accept either that they might be justified in their views or that they have a right to hold to such views. She holds her views to be so unquestioningly correct that she simply cannot hold to the idea that anyone who disagrees with her is not only wrong, but must change their ways to comply with her view of how the world ought to be.
We had this discussion regarding Joe Paterno, in which she found it simply inconceivable that anyone would not condemn (judge) Mr. Paterno guilty and demand that all traces of his accomplishments be erased from the public record. Yet she condemns those who judge and sees no conflict between the positions.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 9:44 AM
Remember the story of the lady at the well?
Theorist, If that is reference to Bible learning, please point out where it is found for us lacking total recall of everything written.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 9:49 AM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 4:17 PM
Do teaching assistants make class policy? Heads higher should also roll.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 7:48 PM
This cake and political correctness are both getting a little stale.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 8:25 AM
I don't like to eat cake anyway, I'm more of a pie man. That's the answer to this thread's question....bakeries need to stop baking cakes and only bake pies - never heard of a wedding pie so problem solved.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 8:37 AM
Rick,
It is pretty obvious that an awful lot of the modern day Susie Homemakers parents only had enough money to buy Susie the vanity set, because some sure didn't learn how to cook.
Their idea of preparing dinner is to make reservations.
Anyway the Susie Homemaker stuff had to be sexist. You cannot expect little girls to prepare for life by learning how to cook. That will be their future husband's job on the barbeque pit. Not sure what they will eat in the winter if they are on a limited budget.
First thing my new wifie prepared for me was butterscotch pudding.... and she burned it. And for the past 57 years I have never let her forget it either.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 9:52 AM
Wheels, It took talent to put a good meal on the table on short notice when food had to be prepared instead of opening a box or can.
My mother in law could drive a tractor all day and have supper ready before the men got washed up.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 10:47 AM
Old John,
Familiar with the multi-tasking the farm women of the past had to contend with. The day started very early in the morning and ended after dark in the summer evenings. And somewhere in there they planted a garden, harvested and canned the produce from said garden for next winters food supply.
I think the women of days past deserve more in the way of accolades than they were ever given. Thank you to all of them in my past!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 11:28 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 11:28 AM
Wheels: Don't forget giving birth and raising the kids to the list....that's why a true man loves and respects his wife.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 12:24 PM
Wheels: Don't forget giving birth and raising the kids to the list....that's why a true man loves and respects his wife.
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 12:24 PM
Semo471,
Yes indeed. Did not intend the list to be all inclusive. She was the nurse practitioner, the butcher, the baker and the candle stick maker. Too long a list to put on here. And I might add the fireman. My Mother once dragged a heavy oak ladder to the edge of the roof and climbed up on top of the wood shake shingles that had caught fire when the flue burned out. Then could hardly get off the roof she was so scared of heights.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 12:31 PM
Rick,
We have one of those carpet cleaning robots. Wife loves it and you could get hurt really bad if you tried to take it away from her.
;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 2:50 PM
I don't like to eat cake anyway, I'm more of a pie man. That's the answer to this thread's question....bakeries need to stop baking cakes and only bake pies - never heard of a wedding pie so problem solved.
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Apr 9, 2015, at 8:37 AM
Wish I'd have known. Would've invited you and the girlfriend to my daughter's wedding with four kinds of pie.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Apr 10, 2015, at 8:21 PM
My brother in law shocked the family when he got his cake and said Pass the beans.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Apr 10, 2015, at 8:40 PM
" What do pics of people with animal heads even mean ? "
Within the past ten years, we have had the "tree man" of indonesia, A child born in India with two faces, A child born with four legs, and a child born with four arms. These are the ones of which I have heard. Who knows what anomolies have existed over the course of 4,000 years?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 10, 2015, at 10:49 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 10, 2015, at 10:56 PM
400 comments. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 11, 2015, at 12:02 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Apr 10, 2015, at 8:21 PM
FFF: Girlfriend and I would have liked to attend the Pie wedding....just goes to show never say never it will come back to hit you in the face with a pie. ☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Apr 11, 2015, at 12:03 PM
Theorist, Not sure what your avatar is about but I like it. I think Shapley's is great too once he explained it.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 11, 2015, at 4:03 PM
I do not know where the idea that one need check their religious views at the door when they become a business establishment, but the state of Indiana is now saying that is not the case for those who wish to do business in Indiana. Good for them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 6, 2015, at 9:59 AM
Were you not aware at the time you made this post that Indiana amended the law to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals? The GOP dominated legislature and the GOP governor have now added gay people to the list of protected classes. They caved.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Apr 11, 2015, at 5:11 PM
So the Spaniard came out of his cave to gloat about a democrat victory of more damage to American freedom?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 11, 2015, at 8:08 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Apr 11, 2015, at 10:17 AM
Still being judgmental?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 12, 2015, at 10:49 AM
"Were you not aware at the time you made this post that Indiana amended the law to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals? The GOP dominated legislature and the GOP governor have now added gay people to the list of protected classes. They caved."
The modification to the legislation does not amount to "caving", since the legislation was never about protecting discrimination. The law was about protecting religious freedom.
Now, I'll grant you, this will make a lot of lawyers rich arguing over when religious freedom ends and discrimination begins, but that was likely going to be the case anyway. The change will likely shift the law slightly away from the person/entity claiming religious freedom and toward the entity claiming discrimination, but we will have to wait and see how much impact, if any, it has.
The change to the law is relatively insignificant. It's sort of like adding Unicorns to the list of endangered species. It might make some people feel good, but it doesn't really do anything to protect what that which was never threatened.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 8:54 AM
Theorist,
Please don't say anything about my self portrait for my avatar.... I am very sensitive about my looks.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 9:58 AM
"Note...I did not judge you personally..."
Yes, you did:
"And finally...I see your obsession...
"No wonder you have stoically defended your macabre avatar..."
My "Obsession" is with the curiosities that comprise this world, curiosities of all manner. Rick asked a question regarding the depictions of old, and I commented with a link that might explain some of them.
The "Tree Man" was so called because the early explanation, before the medical diagnosis, was that he was turning into a tree. Indeed, his uncontrolled cuticle growth does resemble the roots of the Banyan trees which grown in his region.
Ancient depictions of two-faced gods and of multi-armed gods were common in the region, so I found the curious anomalies of those births to be significant. Indeed, the two-faced baby and the multi-armed baby were both regarded as gods by some in the region.
Pigs have been born with human-like features in recent decades. These, too, have been regarded as sacred by some. It would seem to me that, over the course of 4,000+ years of civilization, many anomalies of human evolution might well have existed with bore some resemblance to the depictions of half-human, half-animal beings found in Egypt.
If my curiosity is an 'obsession', so be it. Methinks the world has progressed largely because people have been curious about that which happens around them. Better, I think, to accept the anomalies of life than to be offended by them.
I've also been curious regarding your odd fixation on my avatar. You claim it is demeaning to women, though you've been incapable of making the case that it is indeed so. Yet you call attention to it routinely.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 10:16 AM
The first time I saw your avatar many years ago I liked it and immediately thought it a compliment to Condoleeza Rice.
A woman who came from nothing to a highly successful concert pianist, PhD with conservative values and strong leadership skills. A woman who, unlike Hillary Clinton, is an excellent example of someone who puts "hard work" ahead of "whining".
Condoleeza Rice could run circles around this inept president we have. Much smarter, much more accomplished, and much more experience in leadership.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 10:25 AM
with your face on a skinny woman's body?? Would that be a sign of strength to you? -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 10:23 AM
Who said a skinny woman's (or mans) body was a sign of physical strength? Only you. Need a straw man to win a point?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 10:26 AM
"Think if you would like to be portrayed with your face on a skinny woman's body?? Would that be a sign of strength to you?"
It seems to me that, having been "Jib-Jabbed" onto various bodies, it would not cause me concern one way or the other. I am not harmed by the depiction.
As I've said, if Ms. Rice asks me to take it down, I will gladly do so. Since you are neither Ms. Rice nor her representative, I do not see how it affects you one way or the other. As I said, I find your fixation curious. Are you that unsure of your femininity? That might explain a lot, such as your equally curious insistence that a person ought to be regarded as whatever gender they prefer to be called, regardless of that with which nature has endowed them...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 10:30 AM
"You have taken a strong lady's head, and posted on an overdeveloped male torso..."
Actually, no I didn't. I am not so accomplished a photoshopper as to do such a thing. I have copied and pasted a political cartoon that depicted it. The cartoon was meant by people on "the Left" to lampoon Ms. Rice's "Barbaric" stance on foreign policy, but it was chosen by many on "the Right" (such as myself), to indicate her strength of character and her ability as a leader.
Unlike many of those who lampoon the fictional character Conan the Barbarian, I have read the books and know that he is not depicted as just a dumb brute who kills wantonly. In the books he is a shrewd individual who employs both strength and cunning to overcome adversity.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 10:52 AM
I suppose it is another curious oddity of "the Left": not only do they obsess over money that is not theirs, they also obsess over how people they have never met are depicted by people they've never met.
Some people just go around looking for something by which they can claim to be offended, methinks.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 10:54 AM
"...mayhap you have me confused with someone else."
Mayhap.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 1:46 PM
"When you realize your mistake about the other, feel free to apologize :)"
I gather that you are correct, (though you did call me a bully, though I cannot say in reference to which discussion). Wit whomever I discussed Mr. Manning's case, they have removed themselves or been removed from the forum, so I do not know who it was. However, since you have not removed yourself nor been removed from the forum, it obviously was not you.
If an apology will make you feel better, I offer one, though I don't see that you were harmed by the statement.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 2:07 PM
Must be some kind of leftward thinking this apology thing. We see it more and more these days.
Ok, you planned it out and killed several children. Let us see you make a tearful apology and show remorse and we will show mercy in letting you live.
I may be the only one to connect such thoughts but then, I've always been a bit different so they tell me.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 9:25 PM
Ah Wheels...it is exactly how I picture you :) I am concerned about your computer monitor though...maybe it is time to upgrade??
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 10:11 AM
Theorist,
It is a matter of economics. Thought about it last fall, but then the Rolls needed a wax job and we couldn't do both.
Maybe this year is tbe year. Could you lend me a couple of hundred so I could start the project now? I could pay you back later.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Apr 13, 2015, at 9:50 PM
Menu
If it is for a Man/Boy Love Association Party?
Replies (291)