patrick.net

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

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 b...

Why don't you just accept that FREEDOM is more important than your feelings?

curious2 says

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.

We should be able to use a banhammer on lying. This would put all religions on equal footing not just Christian religions. Don't hate FREEDOM.

anon_3b28c says

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

So, if you haven't seen it somewhere (cuz, no one would ever suppress information, correct?), it has to be a lie?

So we should ban the DEA and bake cakes for gays, because nobody should have the right to regulate what you put in your body - even wieners.

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.

mell says

It's pretty easy to find out religious or cultural preferences of business owners

Not in my experience. Do you go around asking them?

mell says

The only real and fair solution is to allow anyone to refuse service to anyone or nobody to refuse service to anyone.

Nope--the current laws are much fairer. The US is a secular nation-if you want to do business here, you can't let your personal religious views interfere with your business. It's pretty simple and completely fair.

WorkInProgress says

Why don't you just accept that FREEDOM is more important than your feelings?

Why don't you accept that your FREEDOM ends when it infringes upon someone else's FREEDOM?

WorkInProgress says

So, if you haven't seen it somewhere (cuz, no one would ever suppress information, correct?), it has to be a lie?

No, but you have to take anything on the Internet or twitter with a grain of salt. And it's amazing that, despite all the publicity this case has gotten, no other source has mentioned that the couple traveled so far and passed so many bakeries to find this one.

anon_4480e says

cause

No, HIV is a virus that spread mostly by heterosexual transmission in Africa. You and Fortwhine can meet at the Reseda truck stop and engage in monogamous sodomy every day for decades, and if neither of you got HIV from someone else, then neither of you will "cause" it, no matter how many times you might try.

anonymous says

For those that support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) remember these kind of proposals come with lots of unexpected consequences.

That same bakery no doubt refuses to make cakes for homo weddings as well! As most to all Muslim-owned bakeries in the USA do. The point is: the government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. The gays in question could have found any number of other cake shops to get their wedding pastry, but they chose to violate that one owner’s religious agency in an attempt to FORCE him to acknowledge their union despite his religious convictions that it was an immoral one.

Gay rights haven’t been about rights for twenty years. They’ve been about enforcing their brand of morality onto the country. Same as any religious asshole. Only difference is these assholes like to get dicked.

Quigley says

The point is: the government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs

The US is a secular nation. If you want to do business here, you must follow the laws.

HappyGilmore says

The US is a secular nation. If you want to do business here, you must follow the laws.

The US is a Constitutional Republic. That means that laws have to follow the Constitution. The local statute in question in this case clearly does not, as will be borne out by the impending SCOTUS decision shortly.

Quigley says

That means that laws have to follow the Constitution. The local statute in question in this case clearly does not, as will be borne out by the impending SCOTUS decision shortly.

Perhaps. We shall see.

But until it's ruled unconstitutional, the law must be followed.

And I don't believe it's a local statute--it's a State civil rights case.

Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”

Quigley says

Just because you sit on a Civil Rights Commission, you don’t get the right to start violating the Constitution. I’d give this case about a 95% chance of favoring the baker, with probably a 7-2 split. The two will be Obama’s trash, Kagen and the “wise Latina.”

I think you must mean a State Legislature.

Which specific provisions of the Constitution does it violate? Funny that all the Federal Judges are missing such a clear violation...

No, the actions of Colorado’s civil rights commission are what’s being legally adjudicated here. Was it correct to demand that a man bake a gay cake? Remember, he wasn’t declining to bake a cake for the gay couple; just declining to bake them a specifically gay cake!

Also the fact that Federal judges are constantly making horrendous extra-legal decisions based on nothing but politics is because they were appointed by the Big Zero. All that’s changing, however, as Trump appoints thousands of responsible judges to fill vacancies of retiring or outgoing judges. Perhaps the law will be actually upheld instead of twisted to resemble whatever politically expedient opinion is currently popular? It’s a lot to hope for, but change is coming!