patrick.net

anon_3a245 says

errc says

What about cripples?

cripples?

Who still uses that word?

Why not use "cripple"?

Are we to be chased to the ever-receding horizon of acceptable euphemisms as each one in turn is scorned for signifying exactly what the previous one signified?

Again, it's the tyranny of increasingly hyper-sensitive and hyper-fragmented minorities egged on by SJWs who care only to show that what they really care about is showing that they care.

anon_3a245 says

errc says

What about cripples?

cripples?

Who still uses that word?

Oh brother.

BayArea says

anon_3a245 says

errc says

What about cripples?

cripples?

Who still uses that word?

Oh brother.

"Nice wheels numb legs"

We talking about that kind of cripple?

Strategist says

The balls are on the wrong side of the dick.

You are right!

I’d tell them to bake their own cake.

Strategist says

Quigley says

How about the white supremacist who drives to a black owned bakery asking for a cake with a burning cross and “death to ni**ers” in red icing? Should they be forced to make it?

How about the Nazi swastica on the cake at the Jewish bakery?

Why not demand beef in your curry at the Indian place?

What these people are demanding is a right to disrespect the religious beliefs of others. Actually it’s even worse that that. They’re demanding the right to have the government force another person to express the opposite of their religious beliefs in art form. That’s never been ok.

So where do we draw the line, or should there even be a line?

Personal property rights should be the line. Don't you own your own labor?

anon_8f378 says

anon_fe1ba says

They cream their jeans every time they can force someone else to act against their will, no matter how pointless or petty.

Like when they force someone to say Merry Christmas? Or stand for the national anthem?

Oh wait--that's conservatives.

Where is this forced on anyone?

Patrick says

anon_3a245 says

errc says

What about cripples?

cripples?

Who still uses that word?

Why not use "cripple"?

Are we to be chased to the ever-receding horizon of acceptable euphemisms as each one in turn is scorned for signifying exactly what the previous one signified?

Again, it's the tyranny of increasingly hyper-sensitive and hyper-fragmented minorities egged on by SJWs who care only to show that what they really care about is showing that they care.

Patrick - did you know that Realtors cannot use the term/word "walkable" in their advertising? It is insensitive to those who cannot walk. Fucking crazy.

WorkInProgress says

Do people have a right to boycott? So, I cannot boycott but you can force me to bake a cake? I think you need mental help.

Nobody is forcing him to bake a cake. He can close up shop and never bake another cake in his life.

But, if he wants to have a business baking cakes, he has to follow the law and not discriminate against protected classes.

WorkInProgress says

Patrick - did you know that Realtors cannot use the term/word "walkable" in their advertising? It is insensitive to those who cannot walk. Fucking crazy.

@WorkInProgress excellent find. Got a link?

PS sorry I had to jail one of your comments, but "I think you need mental help" is definitely a personal attack, not an attack on the point.

“I think you need mental help” is worse than “walkable” in my book. But in the USA, I’m sure there are no shortage of individuals that will disagree.

anon_8f378 says

protected classes.

Has nothing to do with discrimination. These cultural Marxists are the modern day equivalent of Mao's Red Guards who hunt down people who won't knuckle under to the party line. If they could get away with it, I don't doubt that they would kill the baker. They know better than to fool with Muslims because they'll blow them up. Protected classes indeed--sounds like something out of Soviet Russia.

anonymous says

Bake me a cake...I'm gay.

No person has to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a black wedding, or a wedding for crippled people. Of course, such people don't get to have business licenses because with the privilege of business there comes responsibilities and not discriminating against historically oppressed groups is one of them. You are not entitled to a business license. You are not entitled to any of the limited land.

anon_670d2 says

discriminating against historically oppressed groups

But what if the definition of the group is simply that they enjoy an ancient and well-known vice, like alcoholism?

The religious point of view is that homosexuality is simply the vice of sodomy. And so far, science seems to back them up reasonably well. For example, if gayness were purely genetic, then identical twins would be identically gay or straight. But they are not.

Personally, I don't care what consenting adults want to do to each other and would make no law stopping them from that. But again, here we have the tyranny of a minority, demanding that the majority conform, to accommodate minority tastes and desires.

anon_670d2 says

No person has to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a black wedding, or a wedding for crippled people. Of course, such people don't get to have business licenses because with the privilege of business there comes responsibilities and not discriminating against historically oppressed groups is one of them. You are not entitled to a business license. You are not entitled to any of the limited land.

So, the Muslim Bakery has to bake my "Happy Independence Day Israel 1947" cake?

Historically oppressed minority, pal.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

So, the Muslim Bakery has to bake my "Happy Independence Day Israel 1947" cake?

Historically oppressed minority, pal.

Not a protected class.

Patrick says

anon_3a245 says

errc says

What about cripples?

cripples?

Who still uses that word?

Why not use "cripple"?

The only ones still using that term are old people in their 80's+ (you know, your grandparents).

The common word today is "handicapped" or "disabled".

TwoScoopsMcGee says

So, the Muslim Bakery has to bake my "Happy Independence Day Israel 1947" cake?

Historically oppressed minority, pal.

Hey, suppose I go to a Muslim bakery and ask them to bake a cake with nasty Mohammad cartoons?
If they refuse, they get sued. If they comply, they go to hell.

Maybe the part The Constitution got wrong was Freedom of Religion. Seems like all cost, no value.

errc says

Maybe the part The Constitution got wrong was Freedom of Religion

When you consider how many wars have been and are being still fought over religious differences, you might come to the inescapable conclusion that people tend to really CARE about their faiths. Put what might be their most treasured ideas and beliefs in jeopardy, and they can behave in completely irrational and uncivilized manner, wrecking the delicate balance necessary for a functioning society. The only other way for this to work, with social cohesion, is an imposed state religion with no room for variance.

The most liberal way to ensure both freedom of belief and social order was to put religion out of the control of the state. That way people are free to believe and worship how they wish. At least, that’s the theory. In practice, religious mores can be encoded into law by democratic means, and then you’ve got de-facto state-sponsored religion by virtue of majority rule.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/11/the_science_of_sexual_orientation_the_latest_on_genes_chromosomes_and_environmental.html
"However, the extent of the inheritance between twins was lower than expected. These findings contribute to the notion that although homosexuality can be inherited, this does not occur according to the rules of classical genetics. Rather, it occurs through another mechanism, known as epigenetics.

Epigenetics relates to the influence of environmental factors on genes, either in the uterus or after birth. The field of epigenetics was developed after new methods were found that identify the molecular mechanisms (epi-marks) that mediate the effect of the environment on gene expression.
Epi-marks are usually erased from generation to generation. But under certain circumstances, they may be passed on to the next generation.
Normally, all females have two X-chromosomes, one of which is inactive or “switched off” in a random manner. Researchers have observed that in some mothers who have homosexual sons, there is an extreme “skewing” of inactivation of these X-chromosomes. The process is no longer random, and the same X-chromosome is inactivated in these mothers."

rando says

But what if the definition of the group is simply that they enjoy an ancient and well-known vice, like alcoholism?

If alcoholics were burnt at the stake, arrested for being born alcoholic, and prevented from marrying other alcoholics, then yes, you would have a point.

rando says

The religious point of view is that homosexuality is simply the vice of sodomy

If America were a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, you would have a point.

rando says

And so far, science seems to back them up reasonably well. For example, if gayness were purely genetic, then identical twins would be identically gay or straight. But they are not.

Who claims that there exists a gay gene? Scientific studies has shown that sexual orientation is determined biologically through hormones present in the uterus during embryonic development. This is why the more male children a woman has, the more likely the younger ones are to be gay.

Have you ever met a straight person who had the ability to choose to be gay? Could you make this conscious choice? I can't. I have zero control over my sexual orientation, straight, and I doubt you have any control over yours.

errc says

Quigley says

How about the white supremacist who drives to a black owned bakery asking for a cake with a burning cross and “death to ni**ers” in red icing? Should they be forced to make it?

How about the Nazi swastica on the cake at the Jewish bakery?

If white supremacists were hung from trees, falsely imprisoned, prevented from voting by Jim Crow laws, and were the victims of terrorism instead of the terrorists, then yes, you would be correct. If the Nazis were the ones being burned in ovens instead of the ones operating the ovens, again, you would be spot on.

But since this is the opposite of reality, you are completely off base.

Strategist says

jvolstad says

The balls are on the wrong side of the dick.

Fixed that for ya.

@Patrick

Wow-so now pointing out when a poster is wrong is uncivil?

FortWayne says

I’d tell them to bake their own cake.

And if most bakeries decided not to bake cakes for Christian weddings, you'd be ok with that?

Did anyone bother to check whether the OP Twitter meme has any actual facts in it? Six bakeries owned by Muslims and only one owned by a Christian? That sounds like Syria, not Colorado. You are being manipulated and driven by fake news, but most don't care because they want an excuse to insult somebody, either a gay couple they've never met or each other. The ability to get away with lying to insult others with impunity seems to produce a certain thrill in some people.

rando says

alcoholism?

Alcoholism is a disease involving an inherently self-destructive behavior pattern that tends to cause death, often by age 50.

rando says

purely genetic

By that measure, nothing is purely genetic. Even "identical" twins can be identified individually by people who know them well. You can easily read actual facts about the topic, e.g. "Family and twin studies suggest that genes play a role in male sexual orientation." As for specific mechanisms, "mothers of gay sons, particularly those with older brothers, had significantly higher anti-NLGN4Y levels than did the control samples of women, including mothers of heterosexual sons. The results suggest an association between a maternal immune response to NLGN4Y and subsequent sexual orientation in male offspring." Also, you mentioned being married to a schoolteacher, and having school-age daughters; they can probably tell you about the lived experience of gay kids in school, whose actual lives disprove your purported "theory" on this topic.

Although you might jail this comment as "uncivil," your self-proclaimed resistance to dogma can sometimes trap you in a dogma of your own. You made valid points about housing and realtors, but you would almost certainly be better off today if you had bought ~2010 instead of continuing to rent. You make a valid point about things being not "purely genetic," but you seem to overlook (a) genetic influence on hormonal factors and (b) the weight of environmental factors beyond the control of any individual person. A fetus cannot deliberately decide the mother's immune response to male proteins during pregnancy. You have no theory to explain Tim Cook and Peter Thiel, either of whom would have no trouble finding a wife if he wanted one. You have no theory to explain lesbians. You cling to a bias that you call a "theory", despite its being disproved by data. The question becomes, why do you continue to insist on rejecting objective (e.g. peer-reviewed empirical) and personally trusted (e.g. your own family) sources of information in order to confirm your own bias and spread misinformation.

None of this debate about whether it's genetic or not matters. Neither does if the original report was sensationalized. The point is that you can tell somebody that you're not serving them and that you don't like their ugly horse teeth or their duck face for that matter and you are fine, but suddenly if the person is gay, female (technically the majority), or another minority du jour that is en vogue you have serious problems refusing to serve them. It's either everybody has the right to refuse service to anyone or everybody has to serve everyone (unless the customer ie breaking the law or by serving them you would be doing so, e.g. indoor capacity reached). Everything else is horseshit and just special treatment for certain groups which is unconstitutional.

mell says

special treatment for certain groups which is unconstitutional.

The only group asking for special treatment are the purportedly "Christian" baker and his enablers, who assert a "religious" objection to a law of general application. If he were a Muslim baker and objected to using toilet paper and washing his hands to meet secular public health codes, these purported "Christians" might have less sympathy for him.

No federal or state law requires the baker to bake cakes, but this particular baker chose to operate his business in a municipality that prohibits local businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of specified criteria. This case looks very similar to the segregated lunch counters in the southeastern USA in the 1960s, which were also defended on "religious" grounds. This case involves a municipal law, which in my opinion should have exempted small businesses below a certain size, which would have prevented this case from ever arising. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and to secure to all persons the equal protection of the laws, and the municipal law builds on that Constitutional foundation.

If the baker prevails, you can expect "religious" objections to other laws of general application, e.g. the Hobby Lobby case that got Gorsuch elevated to SCOTUS. Using government to empower religion, and to elevate those who claim to be "believers" over their fellow citizens, is an essentially Islamic practice. Nothing in Christianity says not to bake cakes for people, nor to claim exemptions from laws of general application; to the contrary, the New Testament says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." The baker has a right to his beliefs, but he does not have a right to exempt himself from secular laws, including those governing public health and public accommodations.

For any who missed it regarding the word "cripple", see George Carlin's bit on language:www.youtube.com/embed/o25I2fzFGoY

curious2 says

The only group asking for special treatment are the purportedly "Christian" baker and his enablers,

You can twist that around and say the only group asking for special treatments are those gay couples seeking out Christian bakers for their wedding cakes. This is totally in the eye of the beholder. The only true constitutional solution is to either give businesses the right to refuse service to anyone or give them no right to refuse service to anyone who doesn't break the law. Obviously we haven't been following the constitution for a while now, otherwise we would not have laws such as affirmative action or title IX kangaroo courts.

mell says

You can twist that around and say the only group asking for special treatments are those gay couples seeking out Christian bakers for their wedding cakes

Do bakers advertise their religious faith on the storefront? How does one go about finding a Christian bakery?

And this OP tweet is BS anyway. Nowhere else have I seen anything saying they drove past other bakeries.

anon_3b28c says

mell says

You can twist that around and say the only group asking for special treatments are those gay couples seeking out Christian bakers for their wedding cakes

Do bakers advertise their religious faith on the storefront? How does one go about finding a Christian bakery?

And this OP tweet is BS anyway. Nowhere else have I seen anything saying they drove past other bakeries.

Who gives a shit you don't know and we don't know. It's pretty easy to find out religious or cultural preferences of business owners. Fact is that there are more than enough bakeries that will gladly bake your cake the way you want it within reasonable proximity, no matter where you are in the US. No need to sue the one that won't out of business. Like 99.9999% will go to the next night-club if they are refused entrance for their ugly sweater, gender or their - unfortunately genetically predisposed - acne-laced face at the first club, instead of suing the first club for discrimination. The only real and fair solution is to allow anyone to refuse service to anyone or nobody to refuse service to anyone.

Patrick says

@WorkInProgress excellent find. Got a link?

When searching the net, I get conflicting information BUT, I am a real estate photographer and interact with hundreds of Realtors. I have been told this by many Realtors.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2806343/-walking-distance-to-----is-this-a-fair-housing-act-violation--words-to-avoid-when-advertising-house-for-rent-for-sale-

BayArea says

“I think you need mental help” is worse than “walkable” in my book. But in the USA, I’m sure there are no shortage of individuals that will disagree.

Can I call someone a snowflake?

anon_670d2 says

anonymous says

Bake me a cake...I'm gay.

No person has to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a black wedding, or a wedding for crippled people. Of course, such people don't get to have business licenses because with the privilege of business there comes responsibilities and not discriminating against historically oppressed groups is one of them. You are not entitled to a business license. You are not entitled to any of the limited land.

You don't believe in economic freedom? How about private property rights? Do you believe in those?

Patrick says

PS sorry I had to jail one of your comments, but "I think you need mental help" is definitely a personal attack, not an attack on the point.

anon_2a32b says

errc says

Quigley says

How about the white supremacist who drives to a black owned bakery asking for a cake with a burning cross and “death to ni**ers” in red icing? Should they be forced to make it?

How about the Nazi swastica on the cake at the Jewish bakery?

If white supremacists were hung from trees, falsely imprisoned, prevented from voting by Jim Crow laws, and were the victims of terrorism instead of the terrorists, then yes, you would be correct. If the Nazis were the ones being burned in ovens instead of the ones operating the ovens, again, you would be spot on.

But since this is the opposite of reality, you are completely off base.

Would you agree that Nazis are discriminated against today?

mell says

None of this debate about whether it's genetic or not matters. Neither does if the original report was sensationalized. The point is that you can tell somebody that you're not serving them and that you don't like their ugly horse teeth or their duck face for that matter and you are fine, but suddenly if the person is gay, female (technically the majority), or another minority du jour that is en vogue you have serious problems refusing to serve them. It's either everybody has the right to refuse service to anyone or everybody has to serve everyone (unless the customer ie breaking the law or by serving them you would be doing so, e.g. indoor capacity reached). Everything else is horseshit and just special treatment for certain groups which is unconstitutional.

I know, right? FREEDOM is what the country was founded on. Goodbye America, it was nice knowing thee.

curious2 says

Alcoholism is a disease involving an inherently self-destructive behavior pattern that tends to cause death, often by age 50.

Sodomy amongst gays is a self destructive behavior that tends to cause HIV, often by age 32.