It's going great! I see not much has changed around here. You guys are stuck in a rut.
Oh yeah, we love our echo chamber
The NFL committed suicide by embracing Social Justice, Hollywood is getting exposed for the filthy whore industry it is, Hillary continues to implode by her own hand, and the war against the Establishment continues.............. Good Stuff.
The NFL committed suicide by embracing Social Justice, Hollywood is getting exposed for the filthy whore industry it is, Hillary continues to implode by her own hand, and the war against the Establishment continues.............. Good Stuff.
Why anyone cares if football players do/don't stand for the national anthem on game day is beyond me. This is who we are now, though. We need to criticize absolutely everyone about absolutely everything.
Land of the un-free and home of the perpetually offended.
Who gives a shit about Clinton? I have literally no idea what she's up to. It's easy to ignore it.
Hollywood has always been a whore industry, since day 1 of Hollywood. Same with Vegas... yawn.
DBTrek wrote:I believe in the case before the supreme court the baker said he'd sell a cake to homosexual couples, he simply wouldn't decorate it with homosexual themed decorations.
In which case the bakes isn't even saying he won't serve them, he's simply saying they can't force him to write stuff he doesn't agree with.
No, that's not the case. They were already customers and he had no issue selling them baked goods. He just refused to make a wedding cake. They didn't want the cake to say, "Go Gays!"
I think you're mistaken:
The appeal involves Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who tried to order a cake for their upcoming reception from Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood Colorado. The owner, Jack Phillips, told them he would be happy to sell them other baked goods, but would not prepare a wedding cake because doing so would conflict with his beliefs against same-sex marriage.
After hearing about Phillips’s refusal, another bakery provided Craig and Mullins with a rainbow-adorned cake brief of charge, but the couple decided to file a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission. The commission decided to bring a discrimination case against the bakery, and the state’s top court upheld that decision.
DBTrek wrote:I believe in the case before the supreme court the baker said he'd sell a cake to homosexual couples, he simply wouldn't decorate it with homosexual themed decorations.
In which case the bakes isn't even saying he won't serve them, he's simply saying they can't force him to write stuff he doesn't agree with.
No, that's not the case. They were already customers and he had no issue selling them baked goods. He just refused to make a wedding cake. They didn't want the cake to say, "Go Gays!"
That message is implicit when it's a wedding cake for two gay men.
DBTrek wrote:
He'll sell them a cake.
He won't make them a gay wedding cake.
There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake. They didn't ask for a topper, they didn't ask for "GO GAY MARRIAGE!" to be written on their cake. They wanted a wedding cake that looks like all other wedding cakes.
When I go out to lunch with my gay friends, it's not a gay lunch. It's lunch.
Kath wrote:There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake. They didn't ask for a topper, they didn't ask for "GO GAY MARRIAGE!" to be written on their cake. They wanted a wedding cake that looks like all other wedding cakes.
Citation please, because the baker offered them a standard cake. Unless my info is wrong?
Kath wrote:There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake. They didn't ask for a topper, they didn't ask for "GO GAY MARRIAGE!" to be written on their cake. They wanted a wedding cake that looks like all other wedding cakes.
Citation please, because the baker offered them a standard cake. Unless my info is wrong?
“We asked for a cake,” Mr. Craig said. “We didn’t ask for a piece of art or for him to make a statement for us. He simply turned us away because of who we are.”
“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies,” Mr. Phillips recalled saying. “I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.”
Mr. Mullins remembered being stunned.
“What followed was a horrible pregnant pause as what was happening really sunk in,” he said. “We were mortified and just felt degraded, and it was all the worse to have Charlie’s mom sitting there with us. You don’t want your mom to see something like that happen to you.”
Knowingly providing goods or services for an act that is immoral is called material cooperation. Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding is not something a Christian should ever be doing, but a cake in most other contexts is fine. It's the sacrilegious wedding that is the problem.
Likewise, for this homosexual coffee shop owner, providing a physical space for this group to meet and discuss their pamphlet campaign constituted material cooperation with that campaign. He became a part of it when they used his property and services to hold meetings.
In the case of bakers, if all you did was purchase a generic wedding cake without telling them it's for a homosexual wedding, and put your own statue topping on it, the baker would not have cooperated with it. He wouldn't even know.
The easiest example that most people can recognize is imagining an abolitionist blacksmith in the Antebellum south. If he gets an order for a batch of slave shackles to be produced, he'd be guilty of material cooperation with an inherently evil practice. I think most of us would say FUCK NO to the idea that the state could force us to cooperate with human slavery today (assuming slavery were still legal). The difficulty is in the fact that most people lack the self-awareness and objectivity to place themselves in other people's shoes to recognize the general principle. If they don't personally disagree with the act being objected to, then they don't see the problem. It's only when you point out possible scenarios where people could be forced to participate in acts they actually do see as morally repugnant that they begin to grasp the principle involved. Just another reason why democracy didn't work out, really. Most people lack the mentality to think about social and political problems in terms of general principles.
In the case of slavery, it was exactly this totalitarian and coercive mentality that led to the split. Southern states, when in control of the federal government, passed the Fugitive Slave Act that forced all other Americans to participate in slavery one way or another. They couldn't care less about the conscience rights of their fellow Americans. Even when you think you are right because you agree with individual circumstances of a story, when you find yourself taking the arguments of antebellum slave holders (which the Left has been doing in spades of late), you should at the very least step back from the problem and try to look at it more generally and based upon principles. The right of conscience is one of those basic principles that we ought never impugn since it really is the right of the freedom of thought.
Last edited by Speaker to Animals on Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
